Richard Engel (2:51)

It's been wet here, but the sun is coming out. But I'm here on solo dad care. Mary is away all week, so I am in between assignments taking care of Theo. So doing all the drop offs and pickups and meals and everything, he doesn't let me go for a second. Not a second. You know, it's been a lot of.

Yalda Hakim (3:08)

Fun that's really lovely to hear, you know, but for us, I guess both of us, it's also been all eyes on Iran, the situation in Iran. We've been watching these protests unravel and spread across the country. We've been talking about it for the last few weeks. They, of course, began in late December and then they gained momentum. What started off as demonstrations about the economic crisis which we has impacted the country because of the sanctions that the country continues to face, quickly turned into a call for regime change and really has tested the Islamic regime in Iran. I guess it's been the biggest test to the government since the revolution in 1979. And of course, the government in Iran has cracked down hard. And we saw the Internet shutdown that took place across the country. We've been speaking about Stalin link being the only way that occasionally we were getting some material out. The Internet is now back up and running, not fully and not across the country. But what we are hearing, Richard, is absolutely horrifying. The Supreme Leader himself has conceded that several thousand people have been killed. And you know, frankly, when a dictator, an authoritarian regime, starts to confess that several thousand people have been killed, it must be so much more. And there are human rights groups, activists on the ground, who are putting the official number anywhere from between about 16,500 to 20,000, even as high as 30,000 people being killed. So, I mean, it just feels like whatever happened, especially during the weekend of the 8th and 9th of January, it was bloody, it was brutal and it was devastating. What happened to people right across the country who came out to protest.

Richard Engel (5:03)

Yeah, huge numbers of casualties. We started reporting out and even at the time, we knew the numbers were low and we were cautioning our viewers and listeners saying these numbers are probably low.400. But then it's a bit like in the aftermath of an earthquake. Suddenly the numbers are going in the 20s or teens and then they jump into the hundreds. Then once they move into the thousands, they can grow very, very quickly. And watching this was a little bit similar. They were hundreds in the beginning, then they jumped to 600. Then suddenly it was 2000, 4000, 5000, 10,000. Now there's Norway based NGO that says 25,000. Time magazine is reporting that it could be up to 30,000, quoting two senior officials in Iran. And they say that many of those killings took place on those two terrible nights on the 8th and the 9th.

Yalda Hakim (5:49)

So, Richard, we know that there's been a blackout for several weeks. The Internet is starting to come back up and we're starting to Also get some voice notes from people inside the country. I just want to get you to hear these voice notes from inside Iran.

Sky News Anchor (6:03)

We have our Internet connection back since today and it's really weak. We cannot use our VPNs easily and the connection comes and goes. But we are all depressed because we knew. We saw the massive killing live in front of our eyes. We witnessed everything. But we hope that it has happened only for us and around us. We didn't know that it happened in every spot of our country and it is really hard to tolerate that. And we couldn't even send text messages to each other. And everybody were very frightened because they thought that if they call each other and talk about anything, they would be overheard. And they make problems for us. They arrest them, they beat, they don't have the uniform sometimes and they are undercovered, they're among us. And it, you know, increases the fear. Nowadays after all those kills, these bunch of days, three or four, five days, the town feels empty. It feels like all are dead. When they chant for our king, King Reza Pahlavi and they say, viva Shah. Viva the Shah. We were the king. I mean, only at night we count the voices and. And we know how much of us have remained and that is very dark. The voices are a lot, but less than every day. That means they have killed, they have arrested. And I am really sorry that we are not able to fight in an even bay. I myself and all my friends, we didn't have proper sleep during these days. It was filled with nightmare. The days were nightmare. The night also, because we have witnessed a lot of things that even a little piece of it would be enough for a person to go crazy. I am sorry. I'm really sorry that this happened and you couldn't. I'm sorry that I'm alive. I feel guilty that I'm not dead. The others are. They have taken our lives entirely during these days. We don't have a job. I cannot work. My job is international. And I didn't have a little slightest contact with the international world. All the streets were filled with people. From your front door to the main streets. People were out, were chanting, were fighting. The bullets, the shotguns, the tear gas, the bombs, oh, that was a very big fight. And blood everywhere. Blood. The hospitals, all of them. We have a lot of US hospitals, smallest to the biggest. All of them were filled with injured people with dead bodies. Most of the hospitals asked people to move their beloved bodies very fast before the government, the regime can take the bodies and they help people. They didn't write down that people were shot because they were worried that the regime may look after them tomorrow morning. The whole world is trying to stand with us. It is really overwhelming. And I love you guys and I thank you so much. And we are hopeful that Mr. Trump can help us, because as long as we are not armed, we are only a bunch of meat in front of the bullets. And one person with a gun can kill a thousand of us. And we are not armed. We are not educated for a fight. We are very, very simple people. We are not able to fight these shameless, brutal people. They don't. Most of them don't even talk in Persian. We said bad words to them, and they couldn't reply. They just shoot at us. And they killed a lot. They killed, even killed injured people. They didn't care about it. They attacked hospitals and killed people, injured people inside the hospitals, and they take away the bodies. They asked for a very big amount of money from the families to give the bodies to them. And they don't let them to look at the body entirely or take pictures or take videos or any footages in order to cover their crime. From the day one that they shut down the Internet, they knew that something very strange is going to happen.

Richard Engel (13:19)

I think the government, by doing this partial opening, wants people to talk. They want word to spread how tough the crackdown was. They want people to be demoralized so you open up communications enough to instill more fear and allow the rumor mill to keep moving, but not enough to organize a counter revolution to get people back on the streets and get support. So the information strategy and the use of Internet as a weapon of control or a means of control is playing out. The number of people who are casually killed by authorities, whether it's in a conflict or in a crackdown, seem to be going up every year. And the value of human life and the concern that you will be written down in the bad book of history seems to have gone away. And that's a troubling phenomenon.

Yalda Hakim (14:08)

It's almost like we've become desensitized. I spoke to someone who was protesting, and he fled and got himself to Germany. He was originally living in Germany, but he was in Tehran at the time. And he named a particular cemetery, and he said that there were body bags just arriving, truckloads of body bags just being dumped in this warehouse that's attached to a cemetery. And he said, we were looking for my friend's wife. And he said there were four layers of bodies that we had to, like, four levels. And he said there were maybe 1500, 2000 people just in this one warehouse. And, Richard, this was soon after these protests started. And I confess, I just thought, 2000 in one warehouse. How is that even possible? I think it's our job as journalists to get to the truth and keep telling these stories and get to the heart of what happened. But right now, what there is is the fear of God in a lot of the. In Tehran and across the country because they feel like there is nothing more they can do. This regime has tried to teach them a lesson that we are not afraid to kill as many people as possible to preserve the regime and what they've built since 1979. But just on the flip side of that, Richard, you know, I know you were really keen to talk about the military buildup as well and what options Donald Trump is talking about when he says, I am still looking at options, military options to, you know, hit the. The regime. Although he has now said the regime is not closed off to a deal and negotiating. So clearly some kind of back channel has been created again.

Richard Engel (15:48)

Exactly. So I think it's no surprise that President Trump has sent these troops to the region. One, it would be sort of irresponsible if he didn't, considering he's making these bold threats about Iran and he's saying help is coming. The Iranians could, you know, take the initiative and carry out some sort of strike and leave troops vulnerable. I don't think the Iranians would ever do something like that. I think it's more likely he's building up the troops, which include this aircraft carrier, F15E Strike Eagle, jamming equipment, missile defense systems, the usual complement of hardware that has been parked off Israel's coast several times over the last three years is being sent back. I think it's being sent there probably to do something. It's certainly being sent there to pressure the Iranians. And can the Iranians make a deal? Are they interested in making a deal? And can they make a deal that Israel would accept? Because Venezuela is. We've talked about this over and over. Is not the right model to think about. Venezuela is a little country with a military junta. Trump was able to make and his people were able to make deal with the people around Maduro, and they kind of coughed him up and kept going. Iran is complicated. It's a theocracy backed by a military dictatorship that operates like a mafia. They run the economy. They're deeply embedded. It's a country of 100 million people surrounded by mountains, surround. Surrounded by two complicated allies in Afghanistan and Iraq, where there are militias that can engage in, in alliances and asymmetrical warfare. It's just much, much more complicated where the US Has a lot of bad history. So when these people say, is help coming, what kind of help? Is it regime change? Is it regime modification? Certainly they want more than just a come on. They want more than what they've got, which was come out into the streets and they went out into the streets and got shot. They want something better. But the question is, A, is President Trump going to deliver something better, or is it going to be option A or B, failure, and you have a dissent into civil unrest and chaos. So a lot is on the line right now for Iran, for the Middle East's future, and a lot of it depends on what these weapons are going to be used for when they get into position quite soon.

Yalda Hakim (17:55)

Absolutely. And then, you know, the big question that many people have been asking is, is regime change even possible? I think with the current setup and model, despite how cor and rotten this regime is, unlikely to happen unless it happens from within the regime. So we're talking defections, we're talking, you know, a power struggle, that kind of thing, rather than demonstrations. And frankly, a very weak opposition. In Reza Pahlavi that's often not taken very seriously by the West. Donald Trump himself was like, nice guy, not sure he's capable of overthrowing this regime and forming the kind of opposition that frankly, the regime would actually need. So I think we've talked there about the breakup of the militia, the Revolutionary Guard, the force they have, the power they have, and still, you know, support within the country. So I think with all of those things combined, it is going to take a lot. A lot of people are saying they're now on the path of no return just because of. There is no going back from this moment. The number of people they've killed, you know how fragile they feel more than at any other point since 1979, and that it took 13 months of demonstrations in the lead up to the revolution in 1979, which caused the collapse of the Shah. And this is just the beginning. It's only a few weeks in. But the regime itself knows that, and that's why they've sent a very clear signal to the protesters. We are not afraid to kill as many people as possible for our own survival and preservation. And I think when a system gets like that, that is when it can be quite terrifying.

Richard Engel (19:33)

And they turned on the Internet just a little bit so that people could spread the word, hey, they mean business. This crackdown was serious and they can hear what happened in other parts of the country for themselves. Why don't we take a break and when we come back, we're going to talk about President Trump's Board of Peace. Welcome back to the world podcast. So, Yalda, at Davos last week, President Trump launched this big, much trumpeted Board of Peace, which was supposed to be a part of the Gaza peace plan, but now it's part of some sort of world peace plan. And it's going to be a body of notable leaders, strong leaders, who have to then get together, sort of like a council of Camelot or something like that. And they get together and Trump is the chairman and you get a trial membership for three years if you're invited, and then you can pay a billion dollars and then you get a lifetime membership. And I guess it comes with a towel and a key to the locker room. Were people in Davos talking about this? A lot of nations have joined, but are they joining out of curiosity? Espionage purposes? I mean, I'd take a look. If I were a leader, I don't know if I'd spend a billion dollars. The President of the United States, he can corral together this group of dictators and some elected leaders and sort of a hodgepodge of nations and create this sort of Trump led Camelot.

Yalda Hakim (21:20)

Yeah, it was a bizarre group. Some of it made sense. The Qatari Prime Minister on the stage, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, those players who have been involved, and of course, regional leaders. But as you say, Viktor Orban, Hungary's Prime Minister, or the leader of Argentina. I was outside the conference hall, we were running it live and I was offering commentary. And I mean, it was extraordinary because President Trump brought out all these leaders onto the stage and he looked over at one point and he said, do I like them all? Yep. No, I like all of the people on this stage. There's no one here that I don't.

Richard Engel (21:54)

Like because Canada was in the other room. They got disinvited.

Yalda Hakim (21:58)

Yeah, exactly. But also just, it's clear that, you know, these are people that he has chosen. You say were people talking about it? Yeah, like people I was talking about was, here is this Board of Peace that's been set up. Frankly, the Security Council, other than the Russians and the Chinese, abstaining. The rest of the Security Council agreed to this Board of Peace off the back of the ceasefire. People were concerned about the likes of Tony Blair being part of it, for example, and questioning some of these characters. But I think a lot of People were questioning the fact that Donald Trump has pushed this further now and said, this board of peace will not just be focused on Gaza. This is going to be a board of peace for all global conflicts and wars. I have resolved 8.5 now of these conflicts. And so this isn't just about Gaza, it's about resolving all conflicts. And I think there are concerns, because what is the point of the UN And Donald Trump has said, yeah, what is the point of the UN? And we've seen him raise an eyebrow about the UN and described it as a weak institution. Now he said, I like, could do better. And no one at the UN ever called me and said, you've resolved all these wars. We should be doing this. And frankly, they should be doing it. But it was left to me to do it. And now he's got a board of peace that he's put together with all of these members, as you say, 45 plus nations who have already signed up, the likes of Vladimir Putin, who has said, well, I mean, even Vladimir Putin's confused about why he was asked to do it, given he's prosecuting a war at the moment. Do you want to be on the board of peace right now when you're in the middle of a war? Which, by the way, in the future, maybe the Board of Peace tries to resolve?

Richard Engel (23:37)

Well, think about this board of peace. A lot of people say, oh, this board of peace is preposterous. Like a lot of things with Trump underneath, he's not entirely wrong about everything. It's the way he does it and the way he has to always put himself on top of it and make it all about him. But the UN has not proven to be a particularly useful organization. It hasn't been able to mobilize. I've never seen these proverbial blue helmets do anything much to stop a war. I'm not just getting on my high horse to blame the un but when I go to a war zone, we look to the UN as our first point of contact to find out information or safety. They're usually not there or they're there in broken up different agencies. They're not there as a un they're generally not a peacekeeping force. You look to individual nations, frankly, NATO, which we've been singing a lot of NATO's praises over the last several days. I haven't seen NATO fight an effective battle ever. I've seen NATO operate in Afghanistan, among other places, and it was a logistics struggle. All the different countries with different kinds of equipment and different weapons and different rules. Of engagement. These international organizations are problematic. But what he's suggesting is a world body run by him, where he can choose the members and kick them out at will. Carney in Canada was upsetting him, so he had his invitation pulled out. It's more like a club membership than a governing body, an international governing body that is open to all. And at least the UN encouraged free debate if it didn't always act on it because it was blocked at the Security Council. President Trump is not encouraging free debate among these members. When a cut major power insulted him, he said, you know, fine, we don't need you anyway. So you can both agree that international institutions as they are, don't work and believe that this is also not a great idea. And you can see why countries like the UK and France want nothing to do with it.

Yalda Hakim (25:27)

Exactly. So the natural allies of the United States have said, thanks, but no thanks. And Donald Trump said about Emmanuel Macron, the French president, yeah, no one wants him anyway. No one wants him in any clubs. And I'm just going to quote you, Richard, what the Slovenian Prime Minister has been saying, which is very much in line with what you've just talked about. He said, it dangerously interferes with the broader international order. As you say, all of these multilateral institutions have their faults and flaws. That is, though, what the world has known over the course of the last eight decades. And, yes, it's important for us to have a broader conversation about whether they're functioning still in the way that they should be. But now this board that's come together, set up by the President of the.

Richard Engel (26:11)

United States, by invitation only.

Yalda Hakim (26:13)

By invitation only, billion dollars to sign up, you know, all of these things quite questionable. And the track record of many of the people on the board is frankly setting alarm bells. Now, I spoke to the humanitarian chief of the un, Tom Fletcher, who was quite thoughtful about it. He said, you know, a year ago, we were worried that the United States had checked out of international affairs, that it was isolationist, that it didn't want to engage. Once we saw basically the arrival of Trump 2.0, now we're complaining that they're getting involved too much and there's too much diplomacy. He said, I welcome all diplomacy. The UN is not dead. It's here to stay. We were created for tough times, so we're not shying away from this. From my conversations with the administration. He said to me, it's not a challenge to the un it will work alongside and in conjunction with. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. We have to look at how this goes, first of all, with Gaza. The ceasefire has been in place for several months, but it has been violated on a daily basis. Several hundred people have continued to die in Gaza. We know that the entirety of the population of Gaza suffer from food insecurity. There is no clean water. Kids are still out of school. The place has been completely flattened. It's going to be a monumental task to rebuild and reconstruct Gaza. And frankly, this board, now that it's been established, Palestinians say to me that they're completely excluded from, should focus on that to begin with before they start talking about trying to resolve other conflicts and wars at a later date.

Richard Engel (27:51)

That would be nice. But it seems like this council has expanded well beyond its original parameters. Jared Kushner laid out a Gaza plan. It seems like as far as Trump is concerned, that portfolio is done. He brought peace there, case closed, moving on to the next. And he has this body which watching Trump, I think he'll try and expand it even further. Let's say this Board of Peace, they decide to act as a group of sovereign nations. You know, their decisions can actually matter and be enforceable and in effect replace existing norms. So if it starts to use any of its authorities, it will tear up the existing world infrastructure that has been in place, even if it's trying to just advise it along. It's too high level to just be track two diplomacy or people whispering and nudging along the process of peace. This is an alternate system run by the President at his invitation. Only billion dollars. You can join the club.

Yalda Hakim (28:48)

Absolutely. And I guess if we look at the plan that they've unveiled for Gaza, they've described it as a new Gaza. And I'm going to just read you some of the key points that came out from Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son in law presentation. We both saw those slides with the skyscrapers along the coast and the housing estates in the Rafah area. Again, all of this is in a small territory that's been completely flattened and where 2 million people are trying to survive. So they had a map outlining the phased development of the new residential, agricultural and industrial area for the 2 million people. Some of our contacts inside Gaza, the journalists working for us, have shown the plan to the local population and they've sort of said they're cautious, but do they have a choice? I mean, you know, they don't have a voice, they don't have a say. This is going to be something that is going to be imposed on them. This new Gaza with the Skyscrapers.

Richard Engel (29:49)

What do you think the chances of this in your lifetime happening and that you're going to watch an unloading of tourists at that unloading dock?

Yalda Hakim (29:57)

You and I know what a complex part of the world, probably the most complex and contested part of the world this is. And the idea that Jared Kushner's plan with coastal tourism, a master plan with residential blocks and tower blocks and industrial complex, is it going to get off the ground? You know, who's going to pay for it? How's it going to be paid for?

Richard Engel (30:21)

Maybe one day. Maybe one day. And I hope one day that will be the future for the people of Gaza. But I'm not sure that this is the plan that's going to take them there.

Yalda Hakim (30:27)

But Richard, the biggest sticking point is the disarmament of Hamas. And the Israelis have said from the outset, we're not going to lift a finger until Hamas is disarmed. Now Hamas is saying our 10,000 plus police force has to melt into the new Gaza plan for governance.

Richard Engel (30:48)

We had this the day the ceasefire. This was what their demand was, just fold us in. And there are programs that do that, by the way. Those are usually successful programs, integration programs, de escalation programs, demilitarization. There are people who know how to do this. If you keep pointing a gun at people's heads, enemy heads, whatever, you force people in a corner all the time, all the time, all the time, they're going to fight. So finding some sort of de escalation or allowing them to integrate or become a political party is probably the best way to deescalate this. To try and kill every single member. Usually that just creates more members because they have family members and they have neighbors and you create hate. And this is a well documented. But if you just lock people forever in a box and give them no future and maybe promise to build them something better later, we'll see if that ever, ever happens. You end up with a never ending cycle. Before we wrap up for today, can we talk a little bit about the US it turned a corner. It turned a corner for a while. I kept saying, when you see the protests happen, you're going to know them. You're going to know that moment when it comes. And I think what happened just in the Midwest, in Minneapolis over the last last couple of weeks now, particularly with the second shooting, Americans woke up. It was no longer just a protest movement against police violence. The progressive media woke up. Streamers woke up, online. Journalists woke up, activists woke up, labor unions woke up. Churches started to mobilize. We saw something very different, and the rhetoric changed. It wasn't just about a group of people, Black Lives Matter, or Palestinians, or this was. Was. Our nation's democracy is under threat. We must rally and we must rally now. Get these people out. You saw the local government supporting the protesters, local police departments saying, ice, get out. It turned a corner in a way that makes it very difficult for people to go back to the way things were. You know, once you've seen it, once you've woken up, you don't go back to sleep again easily.

Yalda Hakim (32:47)

Absolutely, Richard. And you think about the lead up to the US Election, the issue of immigration and border security was a major talking point alongside the economy for the American people. Right. The American public made it clear that they were unhappy with the volume of people crossing their borders. Donald Trump, you know, saw that this was an issue for the United States and made it one of his massive talking points in the first term and then in the lead up to him winning the second term. So what's clear is the American people wanted this issue of illegal immigration resolved, this presentation of this force, ice, and sold to the American people as protecting communities. And what we have now witnessed and seen is, in the space of just a few weeks, two American citizens shot dead by essentially a paramilitary force that has more or less gone rogue. And the president has now had to step in, send his border czar, talk to the governor, who is a Democrat, Tim Waltz, and say, I'm trying to bring the temperature down. When they then see a demonstrator, a protester standing there holding a phone and being shot at 10 times, multiple cameras, I do think the American public sits up and goes, hang on a second, we did not sign up to this. What on earth is going on? The administration has backtracked on that. There's been a massive climb down. And I think this is a moment for Donald Trump where he's being forced to sort of turn back on some of these hardline policies that we've continued to see.

Richard Engel (34:36)

We will see if he decides to double down or go even further.

Yalda Hakim (34:40)

Richard will have a busy few weeks over the course of the next few weeks. Thank you so much to our listeners for listening again. Really good to see you, Richard. And until next time.

Richard Engel (34:49)

It's great to see you. Until next time.