Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister and Moldovan Prime Minister Mihai Popsoi; Interview with "The Siege" Author Ben Macintyre; Interview with Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General and Georgetown University Law Center Professor Neal Katyal. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 22, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
America's last ditch shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East, but with no clear plan for the day after in Gaza, far-right settlers are filling that
vacuum. Correspondent Jeremy Diamond reports.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAIA SANDU, MOLDOVAN PRESIDENT: We need to learn from each other how to defend our democracies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- by a whisker, Moldova votes to join the E.U. But Russia's dark shadow hangs over this Ukrainian neighbor. I speak to Deputy Prime
Minister Mihai Popsoi.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN MACINTYRE, AUTHOR, "THE SIEGE": It's really a story about ordinary people who get caught up in this appalling situation that they can't
control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: "The Siege." Author Ben Macintyre takes us back 40 years to the storming of Iran's embassy in London and the dramatic hostage rescue
captured on live television.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL: He will fight and contest the election even if he outright loses.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal tells Hari Sreenivasan why he's worried America's courts might not withstand an
election challenge this time around.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in New York. The U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is back in Israel in the waning days
of the Biden administration, trying to bring the war in Gaza to an end, according to the State Department.
Meantime, the U.S. envoy to the region describes Israel's war on Hezbollah and Lebanon as, quote, "spinning out of control." 63 people were killed in
Israeli attacks on Monday, The Lebanese Health Ministry says. Blinken's meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lasted for more than
two hours, as deaths mount in Gaza even after killing Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. Hundreds have been killed there in the last two weeks alone.
With no word from Netanyahu on what he sees as Gaza's future, or any public plans for the day after, facts are getting established on the ground. Far-
right Israelis, including government ministers are calling for settlements in the enclave.
Let's go to Correspondent Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv. Jeremy, here we have the secretary of state. What do we have as a readout from both sides after
this meeting?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know that from the secretary of state side that he emphasized to the Israeli prime minister
today, during this meeting that lasted over two and a half hours that he views this as a golden opportunity effectively to end the war in Gaza, to
strike a deal that will bring the hostages back in the wake of the killing of Yahya Sinwar. It was a similar sentiment expressed last week, of course,
by President Biden himself.
And so, today, as Secretary Blinken made his 11th visit to the region since the outbreak of this war over a year ago, he is once again emphasizing that
point, but whether or not it is being received by the Israeli prime minister is another question altogether, because what we have heard from
the Israeli prime minister in recent days is a continued defiance and quite a lot of bluster from him as well in the wake of the killing of Sinwar.
Yes, he talked about the fact that he believed that this was perhaps the beginning of the day after Hamas inside of Gaza, but he also made clear
that as much as the killing of Sinwar was an inflection point, it didn't mark the end of Israel's war in Gaza. And he emphasized that Israeli troops
will continue to carry out the war in Gaza until the end.
Now, we also know, of course, that there are efforts to try and resolve the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah as well. Secretary Blinken was
certainly talking about that today with the Israeli prime minister, but we know that the critical visit is happening by Amos Hochstein, the special
envoy for President Biden on this issue, who has been in Beirut, and what he is pushing for is meeting with Shia leaders in Lebanon in the hopes of
getting Hezbollah to agree to a long-term ceasefire that not only re- implements Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, but in his words, something that would also lead to stronger
enforcement of that resolution. And that seems to be where one of the main sticking points is here.
[13:05:00]
The Israelis are pushing for much more stringent enforcement, even perhaps the possibility of them being able to enforce it themselves over the skies
of Lebanon. And Hezbollah, of course, we don't -- we know that they have shown some willingness to engage in these ceasefire negotiations after they
have faced blow after blow over the course of the last month, but we don't know how far they're actually willing to go.
AMANPOUR: Back closer to where you are in terms of Gaza and what the secretary is trying to figure out there. We know that, according to
authorities, some 400 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to your authorities there, since Sinwar's death. There is no plan for the day
after that's been articulated publicly, but you've been talking to people who have their own plans.
DIAMOND: Yes, that's right. We attended this conference of right-wing activists who are pushing to create Israeli settlements inside of the Gaza
Strip for the first time since the 2005 disengagement of those settlements from Gaza. And it's not just, you know, the fringe at this conference. Amid
calls for all Palestinians to be removed from the Gaza Strip, which we heard from Daniella Weiss, a very prominent settler activist. We also heard
from members of Netanyahu's own government, including several ministers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIAMOND (voice-over): DIAMOND (voice-over): There is much more to this right-wing conference on the Gaza border than just singing and dancing.
Amid maps of Gaza and children's puzzles promoting the creation of Israeli settlements in Gaza, there are also calls for the mass expulsion of
Palestinians.
DANIELLA WEISS, DIRECTOR, NACHALA: As a result of the brutal massacre of the 7th of October, the Gaza Arabs lost their right to be here ever. So,
they will go to the different countries of the world. They will not stay here.
DIAMOND (voice-over): But if you thought this conference was contained to the far-right fringe of Israeli politics, think again. Among the hundreds
of settler activists, a dozen members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's parliamentary coalition, including three ministers and several
members of his own party.
AVIHAI BOARON, ISRAELI KNESSET MEMBER: We want, again, to establish settlements in order to bring security to the to the south of Israel. OK?
Without it, it won't be peace to the south of Israel, even to Tel Aviv.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The Israeli prime minister has said Israel does not intend to resettle Gaza, but some of his own ministers seem to think he can
be swayed.
DIAMOND: Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that there won't be any civilian settlements in Gaza. You're a member of his government. Why are
you here?
MAY GOLAN, ISRAELI MINISTER OF SOCIAL EQUITY: First of all, the Likud Party is a democratic party, a liberal party. We have a variety of
opinions, and I came here today for one reason, we have the right and these people have the right to put everything on the table. Every tool is
legitimate in order to protect ourselves and save ourselves.
DIAMOND (voice-over): That push to settle Gaza comes as Israel has killed more than 400 people in Northern Gaza over just the last two weeks,
according to Gaza officials, where tens of thousands have been forced to flee.
And as the U.S. launches another diplomatic push to encourage Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza and strike a hostage deal.
But it's people like far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir who are keeping Netanyahu in power. As I ask him what will become of Gaza's
Palestinians, his response is stark. We will encourage emigration, he says.
But on the outskirts of this conference, others, including October 7th survivors, are raising their voices too, rejecting those who point to
October 7th to justify settling Gaza.
RON SHIFRONI, KIBBUTZ BE'ERI RESIDENT: They take advantage of the situation that happened in order to further their agenda. And their agenda
is not about security, it's about settlement. It's about a conquest. We have to find some sort of negotiation with the other side. We can't
forcefully come inside and take land stir up violence.
DIAMOND (voice-over): A call so far unheeded by those in power.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DIAMOND (on camera): And, Christiane, one of the reasons why it's so important to hear these right-wing voices in Israeli politics is because
they really do have the keys to power in many ways. As we try and glean whether or not the Israeli prime minister will be receptive to these
entreaties from the United States, to seize the opportunity in the wake of Sinwar's killing and the war in Gaza, strike a hostage deal, these are some
of the people like Ben-Gvir, like Smotrich, like Mike Golan, these ministers who attended this conference, who are going to have his ear and
who may sway him as he makes his political calculations. Christiane.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: And Jeremy, so interesting and important to see the difference of opinion from the people who live the closest and who would be most,
quote/unquote, "in danger from another October 7th." They have a very different view of how to end this. Thank you very much indeed for that
reporting.
Now, another top U.S. official has been trying to help move another major war towards an end. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has been in Ukraine
offering more western military support. While the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has hosted the biggest group of world leaders since
invading Ukraine and being slapped with sanctions that are meant to isolate him. The so-called BRICS nations of China, India, Brazil and South Africa
are attending in Russia.
Ukraine's neighbor, Democratic Moldova, watches Moscow's every move with alarm, as it seeks to avoid Ukraine's fate. In an incredibly tight
referendum this weekend, the country voted to join the European Union. But the vote was marred by allegations of blatant election interference by
Russia.
Here to help us understand the stakes, Mihai Popsoi. He's Moldova's Deputy Prime Minister, as well as Foreign Minister, and he joins me from the
capital, Chisinau. Mr. Popsoi, Minister, welcome to the program. So, let me ask you, in the day after this referendum, how are you feeling, in terms of
your nation's security, after this vote, as thin as it was?
MIHAI POPSOI, MOLDOVAN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MOLDOVAN PRIME MINISTER: The vote was indeed thin, but it was a celebration of democracy at the end
of the day, because the people of Moldova have spoken, and despite the Kremlin's assault on Moldovan democracy, our democracy has withstood, and
it has shown the entire world what the will of the people is.
And the security situation will continue to be complicated, but our institutions are becoming more adept, more able to defend Moldova. And this
is a testament to the resilience of our country and our people. And we are thankful to our people for that and for the international partners for
their support.
AMANPOUR: So, why do you think it was so slim? Because your side was talking up a much more significant win in the weeks before. And I think you
attribute the slim win to actually, you know, diaspora votes, Moldovans abroad. Why do you think It was so thin or so slim in the end?
POPSOI: Well, we'd like to thank every single citizen that voted in this election, both those at home and those in the diaspora. But it's true that
the votes in the diaspora actually brought this outcome to a positive one.
Nonetheless, this was largely a result of an incredibly forceful campaign to bring shady money into the country to bribe voters. Because we have this
fugitive oligarch, who is a fugitive from Moldovan justice, who is playing to the tune of the Kremlin. And the cynicism is incredible, having left
Moldovans poorer after the billion-dollar fraud and all the other frauds that they've operated in.
They are now instrumentalizing and weaponizing the very poverty that they've left behind in order to hold Moldova back. But Moldovans will not
allow to be held back anymore. We've been held back for 30 years. Now, we are moving forward. And after this vote, we are moving forward towards the
European family of nations.
AMANPOUR: Let me just read you what the U.S. National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby, said before the vote, we remain confident, that is
the United States, in our earlier assessment that Russia is working actively to undermine Moldova's election and its European integration. And
we also hear from your president who called about -- called the unprecedented assault using the most disgraceful means to keep our nation
trapped in uncertainty and instability about this process.
Apart from your, you know, allegations of kind of general interference, vote buying, what specifically have the people who you accuse, what have
they done to affect this vote?
POPSOI: Well, there are a number of criminal cases pending about illegal funding and illegal campaign financing, but there is also an incredible
wealth of journalistic investigations showcasing how this organized criminal group is operating in Moldova, trying to derail Moldova's
democratic path, trying to undermine Moldova's will to join the European family of nations, trying to undermine the peace and stability in Moldova.
And they've tried hard. They funneled millions and millions of dollars and euros from the Kremlin into the Republic of Moldova. But even with all
that, Moldovans have still remained steadfast in their commitment to see the future of their kids in the peaceful and prosperous European family,
and we'll work hard to make sure that Moldova remains on this track.
And of course, we'll look forward to the runoffs of the presidential elections, which are highly consequential in two weeks' time.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Well, exactly. And that brings me to an interview I had with your president, Maia Sandu, a year ago, where she essentially foretold,
prophesied, if you like, this precise -- these accusations that you all have of Russian interference. This is what she told me just over a year
ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAIA SANDU, MOLDOVAN PRESIDENT: Russia continues to represent a threat. Today, we are facing the hybrid attempts from Russia. Last year, Russia
tried to influence things in Moldova using the energy weapon. Then at the beginning of this year, Russia tried to overthrow the government, using --
AMANPOUR: Your government?
SANDU: Exactly, our government using violent protesters. Well, it tried to use violent protesters, but since our institutions managed to deal with the
risk, now we see Russia trying to do other things, for instance using dirty money to buy voters. And of course, we will see more of these attempts by
Russia to undermine our democratic processes, including the elections. This year, when we have local elections, next year, when we have presidential
elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, she was talking then about the presidential elections right now, and as you mentioned, the runoff coming in a couple of weeks. She also
said in relation to the E.U. vote, unfortunately, the justice system did not manage to do enough to prevent theft and vote corruption.
You said you were confident in your institutions. She doesn't seem too confident. Do you think that your institutions can protect the presidential
vote?
POPSOI: Well, our institutions are certainly not perfect, and there is a long way to go to clean up corruption and to actually strengthen our
institutions. But Moldova is not only muddling through, but reaching meaningful progress.
No matter how difficult it has been in the past two and a half years, since a full-fledged Russian invasion in Ukraine, Moldova has suffered
enormously, economically. But our institutions have also become stronger due to the external evaluation of judges and prosecutors, this fundamental
reform that we are putting in place now, which a lot of the hopes from all of us future development rests upon.
So, as is with the energy security, where Moldova now is independent from Gazprom, so is with the other reforms that we're implementing, including
justice reform. Moldova is stronger and more resilient today, but we certainly have a long way to go and we don't shy away from this difficult
path. And we are thankful for our citizens who are supporting us in this challenging, difficult, but incredibly important undertaking so that we can
firmly anchor ourselves into the European family of nations and not look back, because we've been held back for far too long.
AMANPOUR: And of course, the reason why we're all so interested in focusing on this and reporting on this and talking to you is because of the
context of your northern neighbors, you know, Ukraine and Russia. And clearly, when I spoke to President Sandu, you know, everybody is concerned
in Moldova of a repeat of what happened in Ukraine. And you remember that it was the Ukrainian attempt to integrate closer with the E.U. that brought
the first Russian assault, the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of the eastern part of Ukraine.
Do you fear that, given also that you have Russian troops in the Transnistria part of your country right now and for several years?
POPSOI: Well, certainly there is some anxiety in the country. It has decreased from two and a half years ago, but this is adding insult to
injury. Not only has the Kremlin attacked in a barbaric way our neighbor Ukraine and has continued to kill innocent civilians, children and women on
daily basis, they are also trying to instrumentalize and employ fearmongering tactics in order to increase the anxiety in Moldova and to
try to scare Moldovans into submitting to the Kremlin's will.
But Moldovans will not be subdued. Moldovans have seen the horrors of the so-called Russian world in Ukraine. And Moldovans have been used to have
peaceful relations with everyone. And we are a peaceful country and we want to be friends with everyone. But as long as we see this horror happening in
Ukraine, and as long as we see barbaric aggression on a daily basis, the Russian world's appeal in Moldova will decrease and Moldovans will, as
we've seen in this election, look towards peace and stability in Europe, which has proven itself to be a project of peace and prosperity.
And many Moldovans who live in Europe have convinced themselves of that. And certainly, that is the path forward for our country.
AMANPOUR: So, when you see the help that Ukraine has got from the E.U., from the United States, and they've pledged you $2 billion to try to, you
know, help various institutions around this vote you have, and you're -- and to bolster democracy, are you -- do you have faith that the -- your
allies are doing enough and can help keep you safe if you need it?
[13:20:00]
POPSOI: We have to have faith. In this part of the world, we cannot renounce hope. And we have to be optimistic, but we have also been
encouraged by what we've seen so far. The support of the International Community for Ukraine has been remarkable. And the support of the
International Community for Moldova has been incredibly strong.
This has allowed us to weather this enormous storm. When the energy blackmail kicked in, when the Kremlin pushed us with the backs against the
wall, hoping that we'll crumble. But thanks to the resilience of our people and thanks to the enormous generosity and solidarity of the International
Community, first and foremost, our partners in the European Union and the United States, but also others in the free world, we've been able to
weather this storm and Moldova's energy security now is a lot stronger than it was.
And we can also advocate, of course, on behalf of Ukraine to get the support, because Ukraine is also defending us. And for us, it's not at all
abstract. We've seen the maps. We've heard the plans. Moldova was, of course, the next in line, and we've been incredibly thankful that Ukraine
courageously has stood up and has defended not just their territory and their future, but also that of the Republic of Moldova.
AMANPOUR: All right.
POPSOI: And we can help them enough and will be standing by Ukraine and providing all the support that we can to Ukraine refugees that we've
welcomed, the largest number per capita, because that's what neighbors do.
AMANPOUR: OK. Deputy Minister Popsoi, thank you so much indeed. Next, a four-decade old story that reads like today's headlines at a time when
western relations with the brand-new Islamic Republic of Iran were at rock bottom. An extraordinary siege and an Iranian embassy gripped the world.
And while you might think of American hostages in Tehran, this crisis actually unfolded in London. In the spring of 1980, six gunmen stormed the
Iranian embassy and held 26 people captive. These hijackers were opposed to the Ayatollah. They hoped their siege would lead to autonomy for Khuzestan,
it's a rebellious region of southwest Iran, oil rich.
For six days, the world watched in real-time as tensions ratcheted up, ending an extraordinary raid by British Special Forces, which was carried
live on national television. And now, a new book by Ben Macintyre called "The Siege" tells the inside story of that week. Macintyre took me there
when we spoke recently in London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Ben Macintyre, welcome back to the program.
BEN MACINTYRE, AUTHOR, "THE SIEGE": Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: With yet another rollicking true story that you've turned into an amazing book called "The Siege." And what is "The Siege"?
MACINTYRE: On the morning of the 30th of April, 1980, six armed gunmen burst into the Iranian embassy and took 26 hostages.
AMANPOUR: Here in London?
MACINTYRE: Here in London. Right in central London, overlooking Hyde Park, a beautiful, huge, 56-room Georgian townhouse. And there they held these
hostages for six days. And it was absolutely on every news channel, every newspaper. It was the biggest terrorist incident that had ever happened in
the U.K.
But if you ask people what that was about, that story today, most people will think that it was something to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Because
1979, as you know, had been the Iranian revolution. A new government was in place. In fact, these six gunmen were Arabs opposed They were fighting.
AMANPOUR: They were anti-Ayatollah.
MACINTYRE: They were anti-Ayatollah. And what's more, they were bankrolled and armed and trained by Saddam Hussein.
AMANPOUR: Who wanted to overthrow the Ayatollahs?
MACINTYRE: He wanted to destabilize the Iranian regime. This was really the first battle, if you like, in the Iran-Iraq war, which would erupt a
few months later.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just go back a little bit. So, we know who the hostage takers were, the terror group, who were the actual hostages? There
were 26 hostages inside that embassy for six days.
MACINTYRE: They were an extraordinary mixture. Some of them were Iranian diplomats, newly appointed by the Islamic Republic, hardliners for the most
part, ideologues, people who backed the Ayatollah. Then there were Iranians who were employees from the previous regime who had supported the Shah, and
they were nothing like the fundamentalist lot. And then there were people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There were two journalists, two BBC journalists, Chris Cramer and Sim Harris. Chris Cramer, you might know.
AMANPOUR: Oh, I know him very well because many years later he became president of CNN International.
MACINTYRE: That's right.
AMANPOUR: And I remember him telling that story, and he really quite suffered from the anxiety of it for a long time afterwards.
[13:25:00]
MACINTYRE: He did. He felt a real guilt actually, because he was one of the very few who were released early. And he felt that he had kind of
inveigled his way out. So, it hung over him for a long time. But there were other people who simply had been passing and happened to be in the waiting
room. There was a carpet salesman. There were -- there was a man called Ron Morris who was the major domo in the building who sort of looked after it
all his life.
And in a way, that's what I found fascinating about this book. It's really a story about ordinary people who get caught up in this appalling situation
that they can't control.
AMANPOUR: You really get a sense that there's so much, I don't know if this is the right word, humanity about it. The hostages themselves. I mean,
I know there's the Stockholm syndrome. And then, you talked about another syndrome, the Lima syndrome. In other words, there was a relationship that
developed between them.
MACINTYRE: Very much so. I mean, you get this a lot in hostage situations, where the captors and the captives develop a kind of bond. The gunmen would
give long lectures to these hostages about why they were doing it and why, you know, Arabistan mattered. And by the end of it, even some of the
hardline Iranians were saying, well, they've got a point. They become --
AMANPOUR: You also talk about things that I'd never heard of before. How the hostage -- the captors gave their captives Valium to sort of destress
them at night, sort of canvassed them about what kind of food they should order in to keep them alive.
MACINTYRE: Yes, they'd arrived with medicines that were intended to keep their captives calm. That's not what you associate with sort of terrorism.
They weren't there to -- in a way I've tried to avoid the word terrorist, because it's such a loaded word. These were men of violence, don't get me
wrong, and I'm not defending them, but they did not intend to spill terrible terror in the local population.
They thought they would be able to take these hostages, barter them for political prisoners held in Iran, and then they believed they were going to
go home.
AMANPOUR: But they demanded that, as you say, of this new British prime minister, Maggie Thatcher, who had to prove herself in this case. And
you're right, and others wrote, that this -- the way she behaved was what made her The Iron Lady, what made her, gave her that nickname. So, tell me
what her instructions were to her forces, to her government.
MACINTYRE: This incident showed both the best and you could argue the worst of Maggie Thatcher. I mean, she was incredibly resolute. I mean, she
made it absolutely clear that these gunmen were not going to get what they were demanding. They were not going to be given a plane and simply flown
back to the Middle East.
On the other hand, she was also extraordinarily kind of -- she was also quite pig headed in her way, and she just -- she wasn't -- she didn't give
the police much to negotiate with. And the lead gunman, who was no fool, quickly realized that he was in an impossible situation. And the tension
began to ratchet up almost impossibly.
So, they had not factored in one important, crucial element, which was Margaret Thatcher. This was before the absolute kind of clampdown on no
negotiations with terrorists. But it did also inform Thatcher's attitude towards terrorism generally. I mean, the IRA situation was then critical.
And from this moment on, she had absolutely no intention of negotiating with any kind of terrorists. But it was a real gamble on her part. I mean,
had it gone wrong, and she was warned before the final assault took place on the building by the SAS, she was warned there would be 40 percent
casualties, if they were lucky. If that had happened, that would have been the end of Thatcher's regime.
AMANPOUR: And that's if they were lucky. In the event, they had almost total success. So, let's go back to what launched the assault by the SAS.
What was the criterion that they had agreed that if such and such happens, we're going to go in?
MACINTYRE: Thatcher had laid down a rule that if one hostage was killed, negotiations could continue for a time, because it might be an accident, it
might -- there might be some explanation for it. If two hostages were killed, the SAS would go in. And the SAS, bear in mind, had been waiting in
the next door building since the first hours.
AMANPOUR: And they'd been listening, right? They'd planted listening devices.
MACINTYRE: They drilled holes through the building and lowered listening devices down the chimney. Every food packet that went in was also a bugging
device. So, they had a pretty good idea, or thought they did, of where everybody was in the building. But -- so, she said if they start killing
hostages, plural, we go in.
Now, there was brewing tension inside that building, between the extremist gunmen, but also extremists on the Iranian side. There was one particular
character called Abbas Lavasani, who was a member of the Revolutionary Guard.
AMANPOUR: He's a hostage?
MACINTYRE: He was a hostage. But he was also there -- he was really a spy inside the embassy, to maintain ideological control over the other people
employed by that. So, he was a really hard line. In a way, he was just as hard line as the gunmen. They came to conflict. They came into direct
conflict, and he was murdered in the final closing moments of this extraordinary scene. He was killed, and his body was rolled out of the
front door.
[13:30:00]
But there had been another set -- there'd been a separate set of volley of shots, which was interpreted by the police as being another hostage had
been killed. And so, when Thatcher heard that, she triggered what they called Operation Nimrod, which was an full-scale military assault on the
building.
AMANPOUR: And the extraordinary -- one of the extraordinary factors here is that the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, broke into it, live
programming. Apparently, the first time this had happened?
MACINTYRE: First time it ever happened.
AMANPOUR: And in the midst of a very important snooker match.
MACINTYRE: I was one of 14 million people watching that snooker match as a teenager. I was 17 years old and I was -- we were glued to the final frames
of a snooker match, and it was Hurricane Higgins against Cliff Thorburn. It was as exciting as snooker ever gets. And we were on the edge of our seats.
And suddenly, without warning, it moved straight over to live footage of men in balaclava helmets with machine guns breaking into this building,
throwing bombs, what appeared to be bombs, inside, and then sort of dashing inside. It was the most dramatic television anyone had ever seen.
There had been footage of extraordinary events, you know, the killing of JFK and the moon landing, but never live television that entered
everybody's sitting room at the same time. Not just on the BBC, on all three channels, and there were three whole channels then, all three of them
broke live to this story.
AMANPOUR: And the result was what? Of all the hostages who had been taken, how many were rescued?
MACINTYRE: All but one. So, there was Abbas Lavasani, the Revolution Guard who was killed. Another hostage was killed in the crossfire, but all the
other hostages were rescued. It was an astonishing military achievement, and it catapulted the SAS to prominence. They became a sensation.
People queued up. I mean, young men began queuing up outside recruitment centers saying, give me a balaclava and a machine gun and I'll go and do
this. And in a way, the SAS has struggled with that ever since. The tension between the celebrity of this secret unit and the need for secrecy, you
know, it's hard to be both.
AMANPOUR: Of the captors of the group that, that started this, how many of them survived?
MACINTYRE: One. Five of them were killed by the SAS. The one survivor, and we were talking about Stockholm syndrome, concealed himself among the women
hostages inside. Of course, we didn't talk about the women. There were six women inside this building whose stories have never been told before.
AMANPOUR: Why?
MACINTYRE: They were secretaries. They were people who'd served the old regime. They'd been there under the Shah's regime. And there's one
particular woman called Roya Kaghachi. Who was extraordinary. I mean, she was the senior secretary in the embassy. And as anybody knows in an
embassy, the most important person running the whole place is the senior secretary. She knew exactly how the whole building ran, and she managed to
keep everybody calm.
But as they were taking out that the one surviving gunman, he hid among the hostages as they were being taken out, and they protected him. They, some
willingly, clearly, clustered around him to try to protect him. And he survived. He served a long, long sentence in Britain. He served for
terrorism offenses.
AMANPOUR: So, all that happened. What was the result of that?
MACINTYRE: It was a moment when hostage taking had become -- and particularly hostage taking inside diplomatic premises, had become a kind
of rage, if you like with terrorists. It was the sort of fashion of the day.
After this, it barely happened again. It's very interesting. It had a complete deterrent effect. It didn't stop terrorism at all, but it meant
that the sort of, as it were, the plates of terrorism were beginning to shift. The IRA were also watching television that bank holiday Monday. They
were paying very close attention to what it -- what was happening. Again, they didn't really take hostages again after this. It had an extraordinary
deterrent effect.
Thatcher, as we said, was at the beginning of her premiership. The Falklands conflict erupted quite soon afterwards. And there is an argument
to say that it was Thatcher's experience with the military, this highly successful operation that rather shaped her attitude towards that conflict.
Some of her sort of gung -- rather gung-ho attitude towards that emerged.
And ever afterwards, she would be pictured by newspaper cartoonists in sort of full combat gear, abseiling down the outside of Big Ben. You know, it
became a kind of -- it became a motif for her premiership. And she was incredibly proud of it.
AMANPOUR: There was another hostage who also worked in the -- he was the guard.
MACINTYRE: PC Trevor Lock.
AMANPOUR: He was part of the diplomatic security detail. And he was one of those obviously kept, and kept captive. But he had a gun in his coat or
under his arm, attached to his body, that he never revealed. Tell me about that.
[13:35:00]
MACINTYRE: Well, this was an era, 1980, when British policemen, on the whole, were not armed. I mean, the ordinary beat policeman didn't carry
guns. But if you were a protection officer, you were -- you carried a revolver. He did not want to be a kind of frontline cop. He wanted to have
a quiet life. And yet, he is, in a way, the hero of this whole story, because when the gunmen attacked, he was supposed to be standing guard
outside. Standing guard is a rather energetic word for what Trevor was doing. Trevor was having a cup of coffee inside.
And as they burst through, firing machine guns, the glass from the shattered security door went straight into his face. So, he was covered in
blood. But as he staggered back, he managed to press the emergency button on his lapel. They began -- the gunmen began searching everyone they could
see, but they didn't find his gun, which he kept under his tunic. He kept it under his tunic for the next six days.
AMANPOUR: Why? Why didn't he use it?
MACINTYRE: Because he calculated that had he pulled it out he would've been shot dead. They would all have been shot dead. These guys had machine
guns and hand grenades that against a pistol, a 38 Smith and Wesson. On the other hand, that -- he did pull the gun in the end. I'm not going to give
away how --
AMANPOUR: No, don't. Spoiler alert.
MACINTYRE: -- he pulled the gun.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
MACINTYRE: But, like Chekhov's gun, it plays a very important part in the very final denouement of this story. And Trevor's an extraordinary man. I
mean, he was awarded the George Cross for what he'd done. But this gives you a measure of him. He immediately lost it. Because he put it in his
wife's sewing basket and forgot where he'd put it.
AMANPOUR: Do you know what's happened to that group or to the rights of that group in Iran?
MACINTYRE: This is one of the, sort of, ironies of this story, really, which is that that campaign, that attempt to win autonomy for that oil rich
part of Iran is as obscure and forgotten today as it was 43 years ago. Terrorism doesn't work in that context. It didn't achieve what they wanted.
The Arab minority is still a thoroughly second-class group within Iranian society.
In fact, many people have never heard of the Arab minority in Iran. It comes as complete news to them. And but for an accident of history,
Arabistan, as they called it, would have been another Kuwait, another Qatar. It would have been a very, very oil -- small, oil rich state. So,
this is the way history works.
And yes, I mean, in a way, the whole episode achieved nothing.
AMANPOUR: Ben Macintyre, thank you so much. "The siege."
MACINTYRE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's a real page turner. With early voting already happening in the United States, candidates Trump and Harris are both
reaching out to Latino voters in swing states, but as the election date nears, fears are growing about how the country will cope with what could be
a very close result, especially in a key state like Pennsylvania, which might not be able to announce a final tally until days after November 5th.
Former Acting Solicitor General and Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal tells Haris Srinivasan what concerns him.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Neal Katyal, thanks so much for joining us. You wrote in a recent op-ed for
The New York Times, in case of an election crisis, this is what you need to know. You're warning for vigilance ahead of November. How come?
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL AND PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER: Yes. Look, I'm normally someone who urges calm, who
thinks that most political reactions are overblown in our country and so on. But this is one which I feel the opposite about. I don't think that
Americans are thinking through what Donald Trump has said, what he did before in 2020, and how all of that relates to the law around elections and
what unfortunately might take place on November 5th and the days afterwards.
So, you know, it's I think we're looking at the possibility of a really serious constitutional crisis, one that makes January 6, 2021 look like a
dress rehearsal. And I hope I'm wrong about that, and I certainly could be wrong about that. But every indication that Donald Trump has given is that
he will fight and contest the election, even if he outright loses. And of course, that's what happened last time.
SREENIVASAN: So, what if someone's watching this and says, well, of course, this guy's in the tank. I mean, he was, you know, acting SG for --
during the Obama administration. This is his partisan take.
KATYAL: Oh, yes. I don't -- this is not a partisan thing. I mean, I'm not even a particularly partisan guy. You know, that's very much a centrist,
but I am someone who deeply, deeply believes in the rule of law. And I saw what happened on January 6, 2021 and it devastated me, because the essence
of this country is the rule of law in the peaceful transfer of power.
And when you have Donald Trump now running and can't admit he lost, when you have the vice president -- his vice presidential candidate you know, J.
D. Vance, who says in the presidential debate, can't admit that Trump lost in 2020, all of that is indicia to me of what might happen in the next
month.
[13:40:00]
And if Harris had said similar things, if she had acted in similar ways, you can be first to -- you know, I'll be the first person out there saying,
this is just as bad. Peaceful transfer of power, the right to vote, these are enduring American values that don't -- you know, that aren't about
party.
SREENIVASAN: Remind people who might not have the recollection. What were the legal challenges that the Trump team posed after the lost election? And
what happened to all those challenges?
KATYAL: Right. So, back in 2020, Donald Trump lost the Electoral College 306 to 232, and you need 270 votes to win. So, he had to file challenges in
multiple different states in order to have a hope of overturning the election. And he did so. He did so in state court and in federal court. I
think 62 different cases. He lost them all, but he still tried.
He pressured state legislatures and state governors to try and throw out the votes and have fake slates of electors and things like that. And then,
he pressured local officials, state election boards, to try and throw out individual votes in various counties, all with the hope of trying to flip
several different states.
And when all of that failed, he went to the Congress, because on Congress on January 6th, they have a duty to open all of the electoral votes and
count them. And what he had tried to do was have Pence -- his vice president, Pence, impugn the vote and throw out the votes of certain
states. Vice President Pence famously refused to do that.
Nonetheless, Republicans in the Congress tried to do that and take up these voting objections, but they did so against the backdrop where they had to
run the table, because it was 306 votes that Biden had. He had such a margin that they couldn't just impugn the election integrity in one state
or two, it had to be in many.
The worry this time around is that the election might be closer in the Electoral College, than any one state might swing the election. And if
that's the case, then any one court decision or a decision by the United States Congress on January 6th to throw out any one state's vote, all of
that could swing the election.
Now, it's the case that Congress in 2022 passed something important, the Electoral Count Reform Act, to try and prevent that. In my view, is it
should prevent it. The law is written in a way to stop. bogus objections. But the question -- you know, law is only as good as the people who are
applying it and the people who are trying to enforce it. And if you have some faithless actors in the system, in Congress or elsewhere, you could
have a deep constitutional crisis.
SREENIVASAN: Right now, the public perception of the impartiality of the Supreme Court is probably at its lowest point in our lifetimes. And if
something like this has to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, will people automatically just say, well, you know what, these justices are X and Y
ideologically? And this is just another sign of a government illegitimate in its different courses. It is no longer representative of my view or the
people's view.
KATYAL: That's such an important question. I want to say two things about it. One is it may not even get to the Supreme Court because Congress on
January 6th might throw out the votes from a particular state. And even if it's challenged by Vice President Harris, the Supreme Court might take the
position that's what we call a political question and not something for the courts to decide at all and leave Congress' judgment in place of striking
out a state, say, Pennsylvania with its 25 electoral votes or something like that. So, it might not get to a decision on the merits at the U.S.
Supreme Court. That's point one.
And point two is, I think, you're right to point to the kind of polls that say that the Supreme Court is at its lowest credibility in our lifetimes.
And that really worries me. Back in -- you know, one of my very 1st cases, I was a junior lawyer on Al Gore's legal team in 2000. And I remember
vividly when, on December 12th, the Supreme Court ruled against Vice President Gore, and he right away said the Supreme Court spoken, I'm going
to go concede. And that demonstrated the reverence that he had, the country had, the party had for the Supreme Court. You just maybe disagreed with the
decision, but you accepted it.
[13:45:00]
I am worried that even if the court today acts in a totally nonpartisan way, half the country isn't going to view it that way. And that is
something very scary, because the Supreme Court has been such an important stabilizing influence, like in 2000, in playing that role in our democracy.
Again, you know, I disagreed with the way they decided things on December 12th, but I and, you know, Americans respected it and moved on.
SREENIVASAN: Here we are. We've kind of established that there has not been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. The different tactics that the
Trump team took through the legal challenges, through the electoral challenges, did not work in their favor. Yet here we are four years later,
and there seems to be a pretty significant gap between what really happened and the perception of that.
There's a quote that you have here, "The rogues are no longer amateurs. They have spent the last four years going pro, meticulously devising a
strategy across multiple fronts, state legislatures, Congress, executive branches, and election judges to overturn any close election." Explain the
kind going pro.
KATYAL: Yes. So, like, as I said, I'm not a particularly political person but I have watched what's happened to the Republican Party, which used to
really stand for law and order and stand for the right to vote. I had the privilege of arguing the Voting Rights Act case on the Supreme Court, and
it had just been recently reauthorized 421 to 3 in the House of Representatives and 98 to 0 in the Senate. That's the reverence with which
both political parties took the right to vote back just a few short years ago.
And unfortunately, what's happened in the last years is that the Republican Party has purged many of its members, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, you know,
others, who've tried to say, hey, you know, these shenanigans on January 6th, that's not America. That's not the democratic way. That's not the
peaceful transfer of power. Just look at the images that were beamed around the world and what happened at the Capitol. And unfortunately, those folks
are now not part of the party.
And so, some of the institutional checks that we had last time around, think about, for example, Vice President Pence, who on January 6, 2021,
played such an important role. People like that aren't there. Instead, you have people like J. D. Vance to replace Pence, who are fully in on, you
know, the notion that Donald Trump won in 2020. And if you believe that, then you're certainly going to believe in 2024 now, whatever election
nonsense he cooks up, and that's what's going to lead to, I fear, this crisis in state legislatures, in state governor's mansions, in the United
States Congress, and indeed in the courts, both state and federal.
SSOARES: In this election, we're having this conversation a couple of weeks before the election, and there are already different lawsuits
challenging different elements of how the vote is counted, which districts count, and so forth. Walk us through some of this, and what's the strategic
benefit of doing this?
KATYAL: Yes. So, I think there's at least 90 different lawsuits that have been filed, which is up, you know, about 300 percent from 2020. Some of
them challenge new procedures in voting. You know, like the elimination of mail drop ballot box ballots or the inclusion of them or voter I.D. laws
like in North Carolina. So, some of them are challenging some new practice that's come in as a result of the law.
Some are saying the law has changed and the new practice authorized by the legislature hasn't been fully implemented, and so they're failing on the
job. Either, for example, restricting mail-in ballots or permitting them. So, you've got those types of challenges.
And then you have, well, what we will see, I fear, on November 5th is challenges to the actual execution of voting on that day, whether polling
places are open too long and they're open too short, whether there's any sort of natural disasters or anything like that, which keep polls closed or
open, you know, there's any number of possibilities and then, of course, the allegations of fraud that few many people voted, too few people voted
and the like. All of that's going to play out in courts, and some of those courts are going to be state courts, which have actually partisan
elections.
So, I know most people think about judges in America as nonpolitical, and that's certainly true at the federal level. Once you wear that federal
robe, you -- you know, you're not member -- a member of a political party. That's not true at the state level. Indeed, many states, including
Pennsylvania, and Georgia, which both may play an outsized role on November 5th, both of them have elections for judges in which you run as a Democrat
or a Republican.
[13:50:00]
So, imagine if these cases are filed and you have either a Democratic court or a Republican court making decisions that may benefit one political party
or the other. That can become very scary very quickly. It's the analog of the question you were asking me before about the United States Supreme
Court, but now at the state level, and that's something I think we really need to worry about as well.
SREENIVASAN: Just last week state that judges in Georgia upheld voting rights, but does that give you confidence? Is that something, you know,
you're looking forward to optimistically?
KATYAL: That was a great decision by a single judge. My concern is that those decisions will go up on appeal and then they could, you know, come
out the other way. But that's exactly what I think about when I think about, you know, my common calling as a lawyer, what my profession is
about. In that case, it was a Republican judge, who runs as a Republican, who looked at the challenge that was at issue and ruled a certain way to
protect the right to vote, even if it may have hurt his party.
And that's the way, you know, my legal education's always trained me to do, just to go back to your first question. And that's what I hope the United
States Supreme Court will do and the other judges around the country.
What I'm less sure about is what Donald Trump and his minions are going to do on November 5th, because they have signaled that they will be all in on
attacking the integrity of the right to vote, and that will put enormous pressure on our institutions. And if there's one thing to think about, as
your viewers listen to this, it's the role of the United States Congress on January 6th, because that's where Trump tried last time and failed, and
he's going to try again, and if he can get a majority of the House and Senate to throw out a vote from a particular state, like Pennsylvania, it
can swing the election.
SREENIVASAN: You posed a hypothetical in your article, what if a no candidate wins the majority, that it gets sent back to Congress and that's
where this opportunity for mischief lies, what's the mischief that could happen that we should be prepare for?
KATYAL: Yes. So, that's a different one. That's not the January 6th mischief that I was talking about earlier. That's mischief under the 12th
Amendment. So, the 12th amendment to the United States constitution, which has been around for a couple of hundred years, although it hasn't been
kicked in in two centuries, but what it says is, if there is no one who gets a majority in the Electoral College, then the decision for the
presidency is made by the House of Representatives and for the vice presidency is made by the Senate.
And there are some very arcane voting rules there. I'll walk you through in one second, but just think about that. You could have a circumstance in
which the president is a Republican and the vice president is a Democrat because the Senate picks one and the House picks the other or vice versa,
which is incredibly unwieldy, and perhaps even potentially dangerous to have -- you know, to have people of different political parties occupy
those two roles.
So, the 12th Amendment says that if there is a tie or no one gets a majority, then it goes to the House of Representatives. But it does so
under a specialized set of voting rules, which don't exist elsewhere. Each state has one vote. And so, you count up the number of members of Congress
of the House of Representatives and look and see, are they more Republican or more Democrat? And that's how that state will ultimately vote.
And so, if that were to take place today, I think there are 26 delegations in which Republicans have a majority. And so, if it were to take place
today, Donald Trump would win. Because the House of Representatives would give him that vote. Obviously, you know, it's the new Congress that will
decide that thing, not the old Congress, and so things may change.
SREENIVASAN: So, what do we do to try to strengthen our institutions? I know you mentioned that Congress had passed the Electoral Reform Act, but
even there, there seem to be some shortcomings there as well.
KATYAL: Exactly. There are -- you know, there are some I think -- you know, I don't think it's ambiguous, but certainly Trump's lawyers are
already suggesting that it's ambiguous and that the objections for voting could be broader than what most people think. They'll also try and argue
that that 2022 law is unconstitutional and so it should be set aside and it should just be the raw political power in Congress that decides these
things. So, all of that could very well play out.
To me, the most important thing, because look, we're only, you know, two weeks away from the election, is to really begin a conversation about just
how important your right to vote is as Americans. It's the most precious thing we have. It's why people like my parents came to this country.
And we're behind the veil of ignorance now, and we don't know who's going to win, and we don't know what the accusations of fraud and the like will
be, and I think we need a national conversation about how whatever happens in that vote -- when those votes occur on November 5th, we have to take
them seriously, not discount them for partisan advantage, because there's something bigger at stake than winning or losing this particular election.
It's about the future of our democracy.
[13:55:00]
And if we want these shenanigans to be played, we saw them played in 2020, unfortunately they failed, they may not fail this time, and that's why I
think a conversation now is so important.
SREENIVASAN: Professor at Georgetown University Law School Neal Katyal, thanks so much for joining us.
KATYAL: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
