Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Examining Proposed US Aid to Syrian Rebels; Iranian Election May Hold a Surprise

Aired June 14, 2013 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.

A stage-managed election in Iran but voters there could still throw a spanner in the ayatollah's best-laid plans as polls closed, word that the reform candidate, Hassan Rouhani, is locked in a very tight race with the hardline conservative mayor of Tehran, Mohammad Ghalibaf. And we'll have a special report later.

And a red line crossed in Syria, finally the United States confirming what its allies and the Syrian opposition have been telling us publicly, that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the poison gas sarin, on its people. The White House now says it'll provide military support for the opposition on, quote, "a different scale and scope."

But still it isn't spelling out exactly what that means and whether it will stop the Assad regime's momentum or is it too late, too little?

In a moment, I'll ask the commander of Syria's opposition forces, General Salim Idriss, whether this move by the United States will fend off Assad's forces who are now trying to retake Aleppo.

But first, what exactly is the United States proposing now? I'm joined by U.S. Senator John McCain, who's been a fierce critic of the Obama administration's response, saying the U.S. is not doing nearly enough to support the Syrian opposition.

Senator McCain, thanks for joining me.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZ.: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So really trying to unpick (ph) what was announced yesterday. Can you tell us what exactly is different now and will it be enough?

MCCAIN: I cannot tell you what will be significantly different. They say that there's going to be, as you quoted, Mr. Rhodes, different kinds of assistance. I assume that that means some weapons, if it's military assistance, but they're going to have to come over to Congress pretty soon and inform us as to exactly what their plans are.

But in the meantime, I have the distinct impression, unfortunately, that it's not going to be enough, because in order to change the battlefield situation, the way it is today, we're going to have to take out his air power, to establish a safe zone and provide heavy weapons to the resistance. There's got to be antitank and anti-air weapons. And frankly, I've heard of no sign of that.

Incremental increases, I think, that time has passed. And could I just mention one other thing, Christiane? It's not only the attacks from the air that are so important, asset for Bashar al-Assad, but it's also the ability to move by air men and equipment from one place to another, for example, a battleground right now, as you know, is Aleppo.

They're going to take the airfield and use that airfield to move the kind of equipment and men necessary to take Aleppo.

AMANPOUR: There seems to be a battle within the U.S. administration because even yesterday, before deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, announced what they were doing, which as you point out, is still a little unclear.

There was the thought that maybe there was going to be a no-fly zone of some sort, some kind of buffer zone inside Syria, next door to Jordan, that maybe there would be an arm-and-train program.

Is there a sort of a struggle within different branches, the State Department, against the White House or something? Is that where the confusion is?

MCCAIN: I think that's a source of one area of confusion because, as you know, over a year ago, all of the president's national security team had recommended supplying arms to the rebels, and that was overruled at the White House after the recommendation, secretary of state, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So I don't think there's any doubt there are divisions.

Now we are reading that those divisions are between Senator (sic) Kerry and new national security adviser Susan Rice and Secretary of Defense Hagel and Mr. Donilon. But look, those are all things that are in the media. But there's no doubt that in my view, what is very curious is that the President of the United States himself didn't come out and say what the United States plans to do.

I mean, if this is an escalation, I think the president -- people of the United States deserve an explanation. And if he wants support, he's going to have to talk directly to the American people.

AMANPOUR: Now you mentioned the American people and there are obviously polls which show that the majority don't want another military adventure.

However that does change when you add the chemical weapons component.

I want to ask you, because you were speaking with former President Clinton. And it's been much publicized that he said to you that, you know, polling was not, you know, a way to make decisions on these kinds of issues.

Can you give us a little bit of a flavor of what he said to you?

MCCAIN: Well, I think what President Clinton was saying is something we all know, and this was his experience in Bosnia and Kosovo. As you recall, President Clinton, when he made the decision -- and maybe it was a little later than some of us wanted -- but the fact is he spoke directly to the American people as to why it was necessary for us to stop the genocide after Srebrenica and in Bosnia.

And so I think what the president was saying is that these things are happening, and the President of the United States probably should do what he did, back in the '90s, when we had that situation as well.

And I don't think the president was trying to be overly critical of the president. I think he was mainly saying what he would have done.

AMANPOUR: And now let me ask you, because there are reports, even today, coming from the White House. It's been reported that senior officials are saying that it would be much more difficult, much more costly, to put up a no-fly zone in Syria than, for instance, they did in Libya and that there was no long-term U.S. interest in, quote, an open- ended intervention that it would include a no-fly zone.

What is your response to that?

MCCAIN: How many times have you and I seen high-ranking officials, frankly, unfortunately, in uniform as well as out, that will tell you all the reasons why we can't effectively intervene?

And the one question that needs to be asked is what happens if we don't? It's becoming a regional conflict. Massacres are taking place, 93,000 people. Now Jordan is destabilized. So Lebanon is the -- is obviously -- could evolve into sectarian violence we haven't seen since the '70s.

This is -- and what is the effect in the Middle East, Christiane, should we ask ourselves, of a Bashar al-Assad victory on the -- on the perception of Iranian power and influence in the region? I mean, this has incredible implications.

And I know that we have the military capability to oppose a no-fly zone, to crater their runways and their fixed installations where (inaudible) parts are, and establish the no-fly zone with Patriot missiles. And we can do that.

And if we can't do that, then the question ought to be asked of the American tax -- to the Pentagon, what in the world are we wasting tens of billions of dollars on defense for if we can't even take care of this situation?

AMANPOUR: As always, great to get your insights, Senator McCain. Thank you for joining me from Capitol Hill.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And now we're going to ask the leader of the Free Syrian Army, General Salim Idriss. He joins me on the phone from Turkey.

General Idriss, thank you for -- welcome to the program.

Can you tell me what your reaction is to what the U.S. says it's going to do? Have you been told what you're going to be given?

GEN. SALIM IDRISS, CHIEF OF STAFF, FSA: Thank you very much. The help is very welcomed and we are looking for the next step. But till now, nobody told us what we are going to receive. What we need really is weapons and ammunition and especially anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

And we hope that our friends in the United States, they will not leave us alone, facing the fighters of Hezbollah, the Iranian fighters, and the Iraqi fighters and the air jets (ph) of the regime who are now trying to recapture Aleppo and the suburbs (ph) of Aleppo. And after what happened in al-Qusayr, we are in most need for the help, for weapons and ammunition.

The first step is very important and we hope that the decision will be taken soon, to support the Syrian opposition with arms, with weapons, with ammunition.

AMANPOUR: General Idriss, so I hear you saying that you welcome what the U.S. has announced so far. What we're hearing is just perhaps they want to start by sending some machine guns, some ammunition.

Is that going to make a material difference right now? Where are you in the fight for Aleppo?

IDRISS: The situation in Aleppo is very, very dangerous. There are more than 5,000 Hezbollah fighters around Aleppo, supported with -- by Iranian fighters, by the air force of the regime and the Free Syrian Army is armed with only light weapons, like Kalashnikovs and some kinds of traditional (inaudible) machine guns like machine guns 14.5 (ph).

And now when our American friends are going to send us some traditional weapons and a little of ammunition, that will not change a lot on the ground. And that means that they are -- we will be alone to face the army units and the fighters of Hezbollah and that means for our people who are suffering since more than three years, that our friends will really not going or -- to help us.

AMANPOUR: So --

IDRISS: And we don't know. Yes?

AMANPOUR: Sorry, General Idriss, if this doesn't change on the ground, are you going to go to these talks? I know they haven't even announced a date yet, but the idea of peace talks, do you think you'll go to them?

IDRISS: Honestly and frankly, if the balance on the ground doesn't change, there will be no Geneva Conference.

There will be no peace talks. That will be meaningless because Bashar feels now that he is powerful and he don't have to give the opposition anything and if he goes to Geneva, he will deceive the international community. He will go to waste time (ph) and not to give the opposition anything.

AMANPOUR: General Salim Idriss, thank you so much for joining me from Turkey.

IDRISS: Thank you, thank you.

AMANPOUR: And as General said, the military imbalance between the two sides is demonstrated as these pictures of the ragtag Syrian opposition and the combined firepower of the Assad regime, Iran and Hezbollah, vividly seen, this young boy carries an old rifle in support of the outgunned rebels in Idlib province.

And after a break, we will turn to Iran and the battle of the ballot box there, as Iranians choose their next president. Will the people deliver an election surprise? When we return.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

Iranians went to the polls today, voting for a successor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After the last presidential election back in 2009, hundreds of thousands of protesters turned out against what they viewed as an election rigged to ensure Ahmadinejad's election.

I was there, of course, at that time and witnessed a brutal crackdown, which caused more than 100 deaths and imprisoned hundreds of activists and journalists. Indeed, many of them have been rounded up and jailed again now in order to prevent a repeat of those demonstrations.

This year Iranians who want reform have united behind a former nuclear negotiator and cleric, Hassan Rouhani. And he is in a tough race with the hardline conservative candidate favored by the regime.

CNN's Erin Burnett is in Tehran and she has the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Well, Christiane, it's been pretty interesting. Throughout the day, the mood has been one of a lot of enthusiasm and more than some people expected. You know, we weren't expecting the polling stations to be busy until the end of the day. We went to a polling station right around lunchtime; it was incredibly packed.

And what we found was a lot of people here in Tehran voting for Mayor Ghalibaf. Now people are also saying they still have no idea who's going to win. Most people we talk to still think this is going to go to a runoff. Of course, anyone gets 50 percent plus one vote, they win. And that could happen. But most people are still telling us at this point they think that it will go to a runoff.

So we'll see what happens. We should get results, obviously, within the next 24 hours. And one thing, Christiane, before I send it back to you, I do want to emphasize: we went up to Mehrchal (ph) today, the park. Of course, as you know so well, up in the mountains north of Tehran, and we found several people up there who weren't voting.

And they were unwilling to come on camera. They said it's pretty clear why we don't want to come on camera, you know, of course, the Supreme Leader had said that high turnout would send a strong message to the enemy. And they felt very uncomfortable talking about why they weren't voting on camera.

But off camera, they said it's pretty clear. We voted before and it's made no difference, and we don't think it'll make a difference this time. So, yes, turnout is high; at least it seems right now. But there are people who are disillusioned and frustrated. And they are also talking about.

Back to you, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: CNN's Erin Burnett at one of the polling stations in Tehran.

Now ask most Iranians, and they'll tell you that they want relations restored with the West, including the United States. They were severed after the revolution 34 years ago and stuck behind a wall of mistrust that seems to grow taller every year, mostly over Iran's nuclear program.

Iran believes the United States and its allies, including Israel, want regime change while the West wants total transparency and confidence that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Draconian Western sanctions have severely weakened the economy, hitting hardest at ordinary people, not the regime.

As with every Iranian election, the question again, will it make a difference in relations with the United States?

Thomas Pickering is a leading American diplomat, a former ambassador and senior State Department official. In the face of the dysfunctional official non-relationship between Iran and the U.S., Mr. Pickering has been involved in so-called track II diplomacy, helping to keep communications channels open between the two countries.

And he joins me now from Washington.

Ambassador, welcome back to the program.

THOMAS PICKERING, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: Thank you very much. Great to be with you.

AMANPOUR: It's good to -- it's good to see you again, because really, again, everybody wants to know do you think this time there is an opportunity? Let's say a Rouhani is elected. Let's just say that happens. How do you see that, you know, affecting relations?

PICKERING: I don't want to be disappointing or downbeat at an opportunity, but my sense is that even Rouhani, who is himself a conservative and very close to Rafsanjani, which is perhaps the reason why he might not win, is not necessarily going to change foreign policy.

I have a sense -- and I think a number of Iranians have a sense -- that that still rests in the hands of the Supreme Leader. It's been fascinating, however, that this election has had three gates, one the Guardian Council, which eliminated candidates; secondly, the public, which will have to choose; and thirdly, the kind of mysterious operation of what happened in 2009.

Is there indeed a vote of the Supreme Leader?

And is it like Lincoln in his Cabinet; only his vote counts?

We'll have to wait and see a little later today and tomorrow for those results.

AMANPOUR: So given all of that and given the very stage managed nature of this particular election, perhaps more than many in recent years, what do you think the future will be? Let's just take the nuclear negotiations. And as I said, there's been such a huge wall of mistrust.

Is there a way to chip away at that?

PICKERING: I think there is, and I think that the nuclear negotiations have seemingly continued despite the fact that there have been interruptions.

And in the past, as you know, they kind of broke for a year and then came back for a day, and then broke for a year.

So I'm reasonably optimistic that process isn't as awful as it used to be. And there is on the table a Western proposal, seemingly to get at the 20 percent enriched material. But on the Iranian side, also seemingly not sufficient sanctions relief enough for them. They seem to want it all for a partial step.

So can those gaps be bridged? I don't know. But one would hope there will be another negotiating meeting soon after the elections.

One would hope that whoever is elected might themselves be a positive influence in the process, even though they're, in effect, pretty much regulated to the domestic environment and likely to be pretty much a kind of assistant deputy to the Supreme Leader rather than an independent force.

I think they had both Khatami and Ahmadinejad who played that role in different ways, and seemingly didn't endear themselves to the Supreme Leader by doing so.

AMANPOUR: So I want to cast your mind back to a session you had here in New York with Iran's current ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee. You were both on stage and it was on the record and we were able to watch it.

And I want to play you a bit of an excerpt from what the ambassador said when he was responding to what then had been the latest offer of talks that had been issued by Vice President Biden.

PICKERING: Right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: As long as pressure is on Iran, as long as there is a sword on our neck to come from a negotiation, this is not a negotiation. So therefore the Iranians cannot accept that.

As much as the Iran-U.S. negotiation or dialogue or conversation is not a red line for us, the level of enrichment or the stockpiling 20 percent enrichment is not a red line for us, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: It sounded to me very much like there was an openness to discuss those levels.

How did you take what he said there?

PICKERING: I took that as basically a statement that reinforced the declaration of the Supreme Leader to turn down the bilateral talks on the one hand.

And secondly, what I would call a slightly negative come-on, Christiane, if that can really work in diplomacy, with respect to 20 percent enrichment, basically in one set of words turning it down, but in the other set, in a kind of tonal inference that maybe it might be workable.

AMANPOUR: Give me a flavor of what it's like to engage with the other side, and you have done, not in an official administration capacity but in so-called track II, what it's like to engage.

And I ask you because you know better than I do, that over the last 34 years, there have been periodically sort of olive branches extended from each side, from the U.S. side and, indeed, from the Iranian side. But it's never gone beyond sort of, you know, the ether. There never seems to be any real connection.

So when you're in there talking to whatever top level officials on the other side that you do, what is it like? What is the -- I mean, what are the grievances?

PICKERING: I'd make two points to you, Christiane. Talking track II means neither of us represent a government. And that changes the nature of the dialogue. And the good news is that we can talk about most things, even if we talk about them as potential or possible or maybes.

The really interesting thing is to go back and read Jim Dobbins' book about his work in the Afghan conference of 2001, where his Iranian opposite number corrected his approach to an Afghan government by saying, democracy and democratic ought to be among the requirements of the new government, and where together he and his Iranian opposite number sat down and tried to work out who would be the best person -- it turned out to be Karzai, not necessarily a notable success, but not ipso facto a failure.

And then they worked together to achieve it.

That was quite remarkable. And it is an interesting testament to the fact that even after years of mistrust and misunderstanding, on some things we have been able to work together like Afghanistan and that still holds open promise.

AMANPOUR: All right. So finally, after the election is clear and the winner is clear, presumably, what do you think the Obama administration's next move should be?

PICKERING: I think the next move ought to be to go in and inquire about when the next meeting will take place -- whether it is in Almaty or someplace else is immaterial -- and when and how they can begin to receive from the other side as well as from their side a sense of how we can cross the remaining bridges.

The principle one is, of course, what kind of sanctions relief could be agreed for in return limitations on 20 percent enrichment.

And the other is the longstanding Iranian desire to have some description of what the end game might be like, a much more tricky proposition, but one that hopefully, because it isn't too difficult to describe in the most general terms, that ought to be available in one form or another.

AMANPOUR: Ambassador Pickering, thank you very much indeed. Always good to get your insight. Thank you.

PICKERING: Thank you, Christiane, very much. It's a delight to be with you.

AMANPOUR: Thanks so much.

And after we take a break, there's an old Turkish proverb that goes, "If speaking is silver, then listening is gold." Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan may have taken that golden rule to heart just in the nick of time, when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, in Syria, a brutal dictatorship closes its ears to the cries of its people. And in Iran, the ayatollahs seem to sound out the voters while still keeping power themselves.

Now imagine a world where a leader has actually listened to the people. In Turkey, after what we've witnessed, two weeks of protests that really got the prime minister's back up and his riot police out in force, Erdogan has met with protesters and heeded their call to halt construction in Gezi Park pending a court ruling.

After that ruling, he's agreed to hold a referendum on any future plans for the greenspace.

A calculated change in tactics or democracy in action? We'll wait and see.

But for now, we leave you with a hopeful sound in Taksim Square, a musician named Davide Martello serenaded the crowd on a baby grand piano that he built himself and fitted with lights so that he could play in the dark.

He hauled it 1,000 miles from his hometown in Germany, and for one night, at least, the sound of protests and tear gas grenades have given way to piano music.

END