Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi; Interview With Former U.S. Principal Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer; Interview with Ken Martin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 17, 2025 - 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.
Iranians flee the Capitol after a warning from Trump and more Israeli strikes on Iran, I'll ask the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, Rafael Grossi how close was the country to breaking out.
Then how far is the U.S. willing to go? Will it join Israel's war on hard nuclear sites? Former Deputy National Security Adviser, Jon Finer, with how
the administration it served got a nuclear deal and what happens now.
Plus, Americans grapple with political assassinations like the killing of a Minnesota lawmaker. Ken Martin, newly elected chair of the Democratic
National Committee shares memories of his friend with Michel Martin and discusses the recent turmoil at the DNC.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
New warnings posted just now on social media by President Trump against Ayatollah Khamenei, the so-called Iranian Supreme leader. Trump calls him
an easy target and says America's patience is wearing thin. He also calls for unconditional surrender, adding to the fears of Iranians who are
desperately trying to leave the capitol since Trump told all 10 million to evacuate.
Meantime, strikes back and forth as Israel continues to hit Iran's nuclear program, its military, and its leadership. Iran retaliates firing missiles
at Israel. There are dead and injured on both sides. The U.S. president left the G7 meeting in Canada early warning something big was going to
happen that he needed to attend to in Washington.
Now, seven years ago, Trump pulled out of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, known as the JCPOA, precipitating the current uranium enrichment crisis,
that is Israel's Casa Spelai. The question now, will Trump be dragged by his own hawks and Prime Minister Netanyahu into joining this war?
Meanwhile, even Trump's intelligence officials confirm the Biden administration assessment that Iran has not taken a decision to weaponize
its uranium and at best, it would be a few years before it had the material and the means to deliver a nuclear weapon. But just before Israel launched,
its massive attacks, the IAEA declared Iran in breach of its non- proliferation agreements for the first time in 20 years. Now, Director General Rafael Grossi is joining me from Vienna.
Director General, welcome back to the program. If I could just first start by asking you what you understand to be the nature of the damage caused at
the main Iranian enrichment sites, Natanz, Fordow, and there's an adjacent site in Isfahan? What is the damage as far as you know?
RAFAEL GROSSI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY: Well, thank you very much. Again, a pleasure to talk to you. We have been
following this issue. You have been following it for many years. So, it's good to have this conversation because this is in indeed a dramatic moment.
We are, of course, following the evolution of the situation and in particular site by site. Iran has a very important, ambitious nuclear
program, which involves a number of facilities spread across the country. Going facility by facility, I would say that the one that has sustained the
worst, I would say, damage is one, which is called Natanz. Natanz is a place where there is -- there are a number of activities there, but most
notably uranium enrichment.
And there, two important things happen and it -- right at the beginning of the operations, one thing was that the aboveground -- they have aboveground
and underground enrichment facilities. The aboveground facility was wiped out, was completely destroyed. And on top of that, the entire electrical
power installation up on which the whole compound operates, was also taken out.
[13:05:00]
And this is important, and I'm mentioning this because the underground cascades and centrifuges, we assess that have also suffered significantly.
I mean, those who are underground, because with a sudden stop of outside power, they are bound to malfunction. We are talking about a few thousand
centrifuges that must be, at this point, non-operational.
Then you have other sites. Then you have, for example, Isfahan. In Isfahan, there have been a number of attacks. There was a fuel plate fabrication.
There was a laboratory. There are three or four buildings that were hit. So, this is considerable, I would say as well. There is, in Isfahan, as
well, just as in Natanz, there are underground facilities, which in principle we don't see us having been affected.
And finally, Fordow, which is very famous, of course. Also, in terms of enrichment. You remember this was a facility that had not been declared by
Iran, was discovered in 2009. Since then, it has been declared. We have been visiting and inspecting it. And here we do not see a major, major
damage. We have been able to see some maybe perimeter impacts, but nothing really fundamental.
AMANPOUR: OK.
GROSSI: And then, there are many other activities, of course.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I just want to ask you, you know, before I get to Fordow, which seems to be the focus of attention, how much has the nuclear
enrichment possibility been set back, would you say now?
GROSSI: Well, I would say it has been significantly set back, not completely. Not completely. Because as I'm saying, you have enrichment
capabilities apart from Natanz, you have them in Fordow. And this do not appear to have been affected. I don't know. I mean, we are talking about a
war which is ongoing before our very eyes. So, this thing could be evolving.
But at this point in principle, there hasn't been. So, I think there has been a clear setback. This is obvious. But it is not, you know -- the
enrichment capabilities still exist. Yes.
AMANPOUR: OK. About Fordow, I was struck by President Trump's other posting on social media today, just recently, essentially, we control the skies, he
said. I don't think, I don't know whether Americans are flying their own jets. He's implying that the Israelis flying American-made jets have got
total impunity and control all the airspace and control the skies, which means that potentially they can just hang out over Fordow and keep bombing,
right?
I mean, do you think then, because of what you know about four Fordow, that it's very heavily reinforced. It was always said that only these big MOP
bombs that only the U.S. have, I think it's massive ordnance something, penetration or whatever. But anyway, that has to be delivered by only B-
52s, which only the U.S. has. Maybe that equation or that calculation might change. If the Israelis have total freedom of action, they can just hang
out over Fordow forever.
GROSSI: How could we know, Christiane? This is a -- your hypothesis is very sound, but I -- frankly, I don't know, and I don't want to speculate on
that.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's talk about --
GROSSI: We certainly hope that we go back to a diplomatic solution.
AMANPOUR: Do you really? How -- what do you see? What do you see? Because Trump himself has said, my -- our patience is wearing thin. Certainly,
Netanyahu doesn't want negotiations. Apparently, the Iranians are reaching out, according to sources to try to get --
GROSSI: We don't know. Let me say there that we don't know. I think there's always -- there must always be a space for diplomacy here. Otherwise, you
know, this would be a very dismal situation. Completely dismal. I think even in -- you are mentioning -- you're citing President Trump, I think
there is -- there could be a way to go back to diplomatic table.
It is clear, at the same time, that the diplomatic efforts that were led by Ambassador Witkoff and the deals that there were trying to be struck before
were not yielding the results that were expected, but I believe that there can be a way to go back to some conversation, taking into account what is,
you know, the objective of the United States, in this sense, which is not to have any enrichment or enrichment capabilities in Iran. I suppose there
is a possibility to discuss about that.
[13:10:00]
I do not believe that the only solution out of this problem is a military solution. I think there must be a diplomatic solution, of course.
AMANPOUR: Just to say, as you know, that Israel has struck at the heart of the diplomatic process by doing it when they did it, when there was meant
to be another round of talks and basically assassinating the design -- the designated leader of the negotiating team. That's Ali Shamkhani.
But more to the point, I want to ask you this, I want to ask your assessment as an expert on this very topic. Israel cited an imminent danger
that their intelligence had it says assessed that Iran was accelerating and rushing towards the ability or the desire and the desire to create a bomb.
This is not what U.S. intelligence has been saying, not at the end of the Biden administration and not in the five months of the Trump
administration.
In fact, the assessments have reached a very different conclusion. They said not -- and this is the U.S. intelligence, not only was Iran not
actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing,
according to -- this is according to this report, four people familiar with the assessment. And they quoted the head of the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, et
cetera.
So, now there's a big row. Now, Tulsi Gabbard says there's no daylight between me and all those other people like the president, et cetera. But
you know, because you were there and you've been inspecting. So, would you tell me please and tell the world exactly what Iran was doing, and was it
at breakout, you know, had it taken that decision, do you think? Would it have done?
GROSSI: Yes. Well, there are -- to help you there, I have to say that there are things we know and there are things we do not know. When it comes to
what we know, it is on the basis of our inspections. And where we are on very solid grounds is when it comes to the material that Iran has or had at
its disposal to produce a nuclear device. Talking about here, the enriched uranium.
In terms of the material, they -- and this is something that I have been reporting to the Board of Governors of the IAEA, they have enough material
to -- in case they decided -- this is a hypothetical construction of course, in case they decided to develop a nuclear weapon, the material is
there because they have more than 400 kilograms of uranium enriched at 60 percent, which is one step away from the 90 percent, which is required for
a nuclear bomb, for a nuclear weapon.
But of course, as you know, for -- to have a nuclear weapon, you need more than the material. The material is, of course, extremely important, and
this is why there has been so much commotion and so much excitement and so much concern in the world about this issue of the material itself.
But then you need to metalize the uranium, you have to have nutrient (ph), you know, detonators. You have to have a number of things that go inside
the warhead to make it explode. Not to mention the fact that you may or may not wish to test it or to try it. So, I would say, I mean, there is this
competition about who is wrong or right about the time that would be needed.
Certainly, it was not for tomorrow, maybe not a matter of years. I would there be perhaps more serious about this and I don't think it was a matter
of years. But this is speculation. Why? I go again to the beginning of my comment. These things, we don't know because if there was some activity
which was clandestine or hidden or away from our inspectors, we could know.
What we informed and what we reported was that we did not have -- as in coincidence with some of the sources you mentioned there, that we did not
have any proof a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon. There were many elements there. And I said in my report -- you mentioned what
happened here in Vienna. In my report last week, I said that it was certainly not very helpful that some Iranian high officials were saying, in
fact, we have all the pieces of the puzzle that are needed to have to have a nuclear weapon.
[13:15:00]
So, the issue was and is a very serious one. But I have to be objective. I am an auditor. I am an international inspector. I am not an analyst, or in
the sense of a political analyst or a political scientist. What we are telling you is what we have been able to prove. The material is there.
There have been in the past some activities related to the development of nuclear weapons, but we did not have, at this point, these elements.
AMANPOUR: OK. OK.
GROSSI: Which doesn't mean that everything was in order. And I said it.
AMANPOUR: Yes, you did.
GROSSI: I said that I was not in a capacity to affirm and confirm that everything was in order.
AMANPOUR: Right.
GROSSI: I said it as well.
AMANPOUR: You did, and you had the board meeting and they censured Iran. And that was very important. And it happened just before the strikes began.
Can I ask you this though? You had mentioned at the beginning, and apparently this was part of Special Envoy Wikoff's plan for some kind of a
consortium as a bridge building mechanism to come to a deal. Was that something that was viable? Did you know enough details about it? Did the
Iranians miss an opportunity not to take that consortium deal?
GROSSI: Well, I think -- well, I did not -- I was not, you know, familiar with all the details. As you know, this is a process that Ambassador
Witkoff was having with foreign minister, Dr. Abbas Araghchi. We were -- I was in conversation with both of them. Ambassador Witkoff is a very serious
person. He was dealing with this, he was trying to put together a creative, you know, artifact, if you want, to try to ensure that there would be
access, if needed, in Iran for a peaceful nuclear program to enrich uranium in a way that would also be compatible with the desire of the United States
not to see any enrichment in Iran. So, I think it was an idea.
We do not know whether this idea could be revived or not. But certainly, it was viable. I think any idea, any initiative that would be there to avoid
what we are seeing now, basically, a military confrontation was worth exploring. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Are you in touch with the Iranians right now since this -- since the war began?
GROSSI: Well, yes, yes. Not as last week, of course, because this is -- there's a war ongoing and even mobile phone communications are restricted.
So -- but I've been exchanging messages. Dr. Araghchi sent a letter to me asking for a special session of the Board of Governors and which we did. We
have some limited contact with the Iranian nuclear regulator, which is very important because, as you may have seen, we are producing updates as we can
to try to bring to the world, to you, to everybody, validated information of what is going on there. So -- but I must admit that communications are
quite limited at the moment.
AMANPOUR: I mean, I don't know whether you would put a -- you know, a figure on the chances of negotiations restarting. But let's say they don't,
let's say the regime survives. There's a whole load of threats against the regime. So, regime change appears to be certainly in the atmosphere. If the
regime survives, do you think they might decide to go for the very weapon that you've all tried to prevent them from having from -- for all these
decades? Because they see that, you know, nothing else matters and that North Korea has one and that this and that and the others, and they are not
threatened in the same way. I mean, is there a possibility, do you think, of it going deeply underground, so to speak?
GROSSI: The possibility -- Christiane, the possibility exists, but I would say that I don't see Iran going in this direction. You may have noted, and
I think this is very important, that in the dialogue, for example, between President Trump and President Putin, there is an agreement on one thing,
which is very important, that there shouldn't be nuclear weapons in Iran. And I invite you to factor in this because it is very important that there
is a consensus that there shouldn't be any nuclear weapon in Iran.
AMANPOUR: Of course. Yes.
[13:20:00]
GROSSI: So, were this the course of action to be followed, it would be very, very problematic. So, I wouldn't equate this so quickly with a case
like the DPRK, for example. I think the geographical considerations, the RA of alliances and political affiliations there, the nature of the region
would not lend itself to this so easily.
I certainly hope that when the military conflict in this phase ends, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, we have to put an end to this, I hope
there will be there -- there will have to be a diplomatic table around which we will have to coalesce and to converge around a country that will
have a nuclear program without any military derivation, so to speak.
So, the IAEA is there at the moment. We are in in a situation of a great emergency. We are looking at the radiological dangers that may exist out of
the out of the kinetic phase that we are going through, hoping that nothing very serious will happen apart from what has happened so far.
AMANPOUR: OK. It's really interesting and really important to have your assessment because you're the expert. IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi, thank you
very much for being with us. And we will be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: As we come on air after a break, the Israeli defense minister tonight has announced that Israel plans to attack, quote, "very significant
targets around Tehran, in and around Tehran." We will continue to monitor this.
President Trump planned an emergency meeting with his national security team in Washington today after leaving the G7 in Canada early. His
reputation as a dealmaker and a peace broker is now firmly on the line as every single crisis and war that he vowed to quickly solve have in fact
gotten worse since the assumed office five months ago.
Jon Finer was the former deputy national security adviser under the Biden administration, and he joins me here in the studio. And you also, I
believe, chief of staff to John Kerry, secretary of state during the whole nuclear negotiation?
JON FINER, FORMER U.S. PRINCIPAL DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: OK. First and foremost, this announcement out of Israel from the defense minister, what do you think -- I realize it's speculation, but
that's where leadership is. What do you think is the next phase of this?
FINER: So, no idea what targets they're referring to. They've obviously hit targets in Tehran throughout the course of the last several days. So, not
clear, this actually marks a different phase. But what's clear is both the United States and Israel are doing a lot of signaling, and Israel obviously
doing more than signaling, intended to put a ton of pressure on Tehran, either to come to the table and take the terms of the deal that President
Trump offered previously or make other concessions related to its nuclear program. Do
AMANPOUR: you know what the terms of that deal is? I mean, it's -- the consortium you're talking about potentially, yes?
FINER: Yes. So, there've been a number of public disclosures related to the deal that was on the table. At one point, it looked like the Trump
administration might actually concede domestic enrichment of uranium inside Iran. Obviously, the Israelis totally opposed that. But a different phase -
-
AMANPOUR: And then Trump backed down.
[13:25:00]
FINER: President Trump came out and said, absolutely not. There will be no domestic enrichment. So, I think this consortium model, where a group of
countries would get together, enrich uranium collectively outside of Iran, is the best that was offered to Iran. And at this point, given there are
other options, you can see the appeal that potentially going up.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And potentially, it was a good deal potentially. Because I understand that other neighboring countries, which might have been part
of it, according to reports anyway, we're talking about maybe it happening in the Persian Gulf and then Iran being able to claim, well, it's here, and
the U.S. being able to claim, well, it's not here. You know, that kind of whatever you call it, creative diplomacy.
FINER: Right. So --
AMANPOUR: Do you think they over negotiated the Iranians?
FINER: Look, Iran's notoriously difficult to negotiate with. You know, this as well as I do. I'm sure that their bottom-line terms were never fully
revealed in the negotiating room, wouldn't have been revealed until the very end stage. But they have taken a public stance that domestic
enrichment inside Iran is a red line for them. So, it is entirely possible that this consortium model did not meet the terms that Iran's negotiators
were authorized to accept.
AMANPOUR: And just to be clear, what they have now is some 400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, which is very close to breakout level of 90
percent. But this consortium deal would've kept the level of enrichment down to 3.75 or something like that, correct?
FINER: The consortium deal, at least the terms that were last disclosed, after Trump said no domestic enrichment inside Iran, would be zero
enrichment in Iran and a lower level of enrichment in this consortium outside of Iran.
AMANPOUR: And that they require for the nuclear reactors, for the domestic nuclear power?
FINER: Yes. They use it as fuel for the reactors. There are other potential, you know, medical and other uses for low enriched uranium. It's
when you get up into the 60 percent and then 90 percent, which is weapons grade, where they don't have a credible case that there are civilian uses
for this material.
AMANPOUR: So, OK. What do you make of where we are today? You know, you were with the Obama administration and the Biden administration heavily,
you know, involved in the JCPOA, that took months. I mean, nearly two years just to negotiate.
Tell us a little bit about it. It wasn't perfect. It wasn't Nixon went to China. It was an arms control deal. It wasn't perfect. But was it working?
FINER: Well, so, here's the way to think about the JCPOA, I think. The two main criticisms of it are, one, it only dealt with nuclear issues. Our
calculation, you know, which others can feel to take a different position was there was no deal available to the United States on the whole range of
issues between the United States and Iran and the western world and Iran. The nuclear issue was the most important for us, for our interest, the very
top of our list. So, we focused on that.
The other criticism of it was that it was time bound. At certain points, certain constraints on Iran's nuclear program would expire. All of that
said, if we were living under the JCPOA today, those constraints would not begin to expire until 2026, until next year. So, right now, we would be
dealing with an Iran that had one year of breakout time, that would take one year to accumulate as much enriched uranium as is required to produce a
weapon. And you know, the constraints would then ease off starting in 2026.
During the period in which the JCPOA was in effect, 2015, roughly beginning of 2016 to 2018, 2019 when Trump pulled out of the deal, the IAEA, you just
had the director general on before me, attested at every point that Iran was following the terms of the deal and the U.S. Intelligence Community
said the same thing under the Obama administration and under the Trump administration.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you make of what appears to be some distance, although now Tulsi Gabbard says there's no daylight, but she and her
Intelligence Community also put out an assessment, which I read to the director general, the likes of which there is no evidence that they have
taken a decision or moved towards weaponization. And I think she said, you know, it could take three years or so to do that and to actually have a
successful weapon. I think she got her wrist slapped. And now, she's saying there's no daylight.
You were there at the end of the Biden administration. Was that a similar assessment then?
FINER: So, look, with a caveat that I don't know what I don't know, over the last five months.
AMANPOUR: Yes. But at the end of the Biden administration.
FINER: But since 2007, and certainly up through the end of the Biden administration in January of this year, the Intelligence Community has been
remarkably consistent on this point. In 2007, they concluded that Iran stopped seeking a nuclear weapon in 2003. So, for the last, you know, call
it 21, 22 years, the Intelligence Community has taken the position that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon.
Now, the one distinction that came into play during the course of 2024, the last year that we were in office, was there was a lot of chatter in the
Iranian system about whether they actually needed to revisit this ban from the supreme leader on seeking a nuclear weapon.
[13:30:00]
And the reason is, a lot of Iran's conventional capabilities, a lot of their deterrence, their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, their allies in the
region, like, Abbas -- Assad, sorry, in Syria, had been completely weakened or eliminated entirely during the course of the post-October 7th conflicts
with Israel.
And so, some inside the Iranian security establishments started to say privately and publicly, look, we need to look again at the possibility of a
nuclear weapon because our other deterrence have been badly damaged.
AMANPOUR: So, I tried to put that to Rafael Grossi, but I kind of mangled it. So, in other words, could that be a negative backlash to this war
against and also the complete elimination of Iran's conventional capacity, which we've seen? I mean, it's been defanged, as you just said.
FINER: Yes. Look, it's --
AMANPOUR: INCLUDING its air defenses. I know, sending missiles to Israel, but apparently, it doesn't have that many left.
FINER: It is the other side of the coin of what has been a tremendous tactical success on the part of Israel vis-a-vis Iran's proxies and Iran's
capabilities themselves. I mean, you know, we forget in the context of this back and forth that's taken place in recent days. Iran attacked Israel
twice with hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones in 2024 and the United States, our administration, and Israel worked together to totally defeat
those two attacks. That also weakened Iran's sense of deterrence against Israel And Israel, in responding to those attacks, took out a number of
Iran's air defenses, which paved the way for the operations that you're seeing right now.
AMANPOUR: Exactly. Can I just say, because in addition to what Israel Katz, the defense minister said about taking out significant targets in Tehran
and calling on -- I mean, come on, 10 million people to evacuate. There's panic in the streets there. But anyway, we'll talk about that in a minute.
But he said, and this is the first time I think the Israelis have said, the United States is a great friend. At the moment, they're helping us on the
defense against some of the attacks, and we thank them for that. Yes, he said they're not conducting negotiation, but this is the first I've heard
of an -- of official confirmation that the U.S. is involved in deterring these attacks.
FINER: Well, look --
AMANPOUR: I mean, I know they have the capacity, but they're not bragging about it and they're not saying it.
FINER: I don't think the Pentagon has been hiding the fact that they have been helping the Israelis shoot missiles out of the sky that aimed at
Israel. And you know, we were not quite about that either.
AMANPOUR: No, no, no, I know. But this time it seemed different.
FINER: We talked about it at length. And I guess the other thing is that's a pretty obvious decision for a U.S. president. There are hundreds of
thousands -- leaving aside that Israel is our closest ally in the region, we would defend them anyway. There are hundreds of thousands of American
citizens in Israel at any given moment either. So, that defensive work, which has been successful, although not 100 percent, and you're never going
to -- you know, I think we gave a bit of a false sense of security last year by reducing Israeli casualties almost down to zero that this could be
done with total lack of effect on the Israeli population. You're now seeing that some of these missiles are going to get through.
AMANPOUR: And do you think that's because not all the other allies are involved like they were before? Why do you think that is the case?
FINER: No, I think that's merely a function of the fact that shooting ballistic missiles out of the sky is really hard.
AMANPOUR: Can I just move on to sort of the other big issues that have proliferated under Trump rather than getting better, as he said, they
would. So, I mentioned Ukraine, it's got much, much worse. Russia is much more violent in missile and drones on civilian targets inside Ukraine and
others. As you see, Israel is still, you know, going to -- bombing Gaza. And today, we understand from the health officials there that another
several dozen civilians were killed, many of them around that, you know, so-called distribution place. That hasn't changed. And now, we have this.
And Trump said he wanted to be a -- you know, a dealmaker and a peacemaker.
He embraced Vladimir Putin at the G7 today, not there, but metaphorically. He should be here. He should be helping us. Where do you think American
diplomacy is headed now and in the next several months under this administration?
FINER: Yes. I think it's a very good and important question. And I think what you're seeing play out now, in many ways, is the difference between
being a political candidate when you don't have accountability for all of the different things going on around the world and being the president of
the United States where whether it's your fault or not, whether you caused it or not, you sort of own all of these outcomes because of the traditional
leadership role the United States has played in the world.
We were fighting that a bit during the course of the Biden administration. Big conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Obviously, enormous conflict and
the tragic events, horrific events of October 7th. The United States didn't cause those events, but you sort of own the outcomes. And so, Trump was
able to say during his campaign, look how messy the world is. It wouldn't be like that if I were in charge. It wasn't like that when I was. Now, he's
finding that actually resolving these situations is a lot harder than talking about them from the campaign trail.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: So, in a final question, because this is really, really important. You know, we read and we hear the whole DOGE process and
everything just eviscerated so many departments, so much of the infrastructure in terms of human resources that spend the hours and the
time on coming up with options for the president. And, you know, figuring out -- you tell me, I mean, you were in the middle of it. Can he do all
these big things with the limited group that he has?
FINER: Yes. I will say I worry about that. And look, to give this administration some credit, I think they are correct to seek diplomatic
solutions to all of these conflicts.
AMANPOUR: Of course.
FINER: And I think putting -- deploying the president's most trusted adviser, Steve Witkoff, either to Russia and Ukraine or to the current
conflict, I think shows the president is prioritizing this. I think that's a good thing. But I worry about exactly what you just raised.
When we negotiated the JCPOA, which has very complicated, intricate technical dimensions of nuclear physics when it comes to the nuclear
program, of the kind of economic architecture of sanctions when it comes to the sanctions that it would have to be lifted for Iran to accept deal. We
leaned very heavily on experts throughout the U.S. government, from our Treasury Department, from our Department of Energy, people who we brought
directly into these talks to make sure that we weren't missing anything, that we weren't being tricked in some way by Iranian negotiators who are
also very technically adept. I worry that a lot of that expertise has gone out the door during the course of the first few months of this
administration, and I hope that the lead negotiators have people to rely on who know what they're doing.
AMANPOUR: Very finally, we've got 30 seconds. If there is a leadership targets, like Ayatollah Khamenei, President Trump said, you know, he is --
he's -- I think he said he's very vulnerable.
FINER: Not yet.
AMANPOUR: What will happen? Do you envision -- what would happen in Iran right now?
FINER: Look, I think that would signal obviously a very different goal for the war. Right now, we're talking about the nuclear program and the missile
program. You know, military targets. If they start to go after leadership targets, that signals that they are seeking regime change. And the problem
with seeking regime change, which you and I have both seen up close firsthand, is you don't know necessarily what follows it.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. Indeed. Jon Finer, thank you very much indeed. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, whilst political turmoil continues to cause domestic chaos in the United States, the Democratic Party is fighting its own battles with
internal tensions mounting, including in the Democratic National Committee, raising the question of whether it can actually be a successful opposition
party through Trump's second presidency.
The newly elected chair of the DNC, Ken Martin, has plenty of ideas. And he joins Michel Martin to discuss them.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Ken Martin, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for speaking with us.
KEN MARTIN, CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Thanks for having me, Michel.
M. MARTIN: Obviously, when we arranged to have this conversation some time ago, our plan was to talk about your plans for the Democratic National
Committee, to talk about some of the disagreements that Democrats have been having. But then, of course, over the last few days, you know, we were
confronted with the horrific, you know, murder of state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband, and also the wounding of State Senator
John Hoffman and his wife. You know, thankfully they seemed to be recovering, but, you know, you'd known her for a long time. You're the
former chair of the party in Minnesota.
[13:40:00]
So, if you would just give me your -- just give me a memory of Representative Hortman, a longstanding speaker of the house, in fact, one
of the longest serving and undertook that position at a relatively young age. So, what is your most significant memory of her?
K. MARTIN: Well, thank you, Michel, for asking. And let me just say that obviously as a proud Minnesotan, you know, my heart breaks obviously for
all of my friends and colleagues back home in Minnesota.
Imagine, you know, waking up to the news on Saturday, as I did and many Minnesotans that there had been a shooting in Minnesota, only to find out
later that it was at the homes of some legislators. And then only to find out later in the day that two of your very close friends, Melissa and Mark
Hortman, who I've known over half of my life were assassinated. And two of my other friends were -- they attempted to murder them as well.
And Melissa Hortman was an amazing change maker in our state. She won in 2004. Came into the legislature and immediately started to climb the ranks.
In 2018, when we won back the House majority, she became the speaker. One of our longest serving speakers. And frankly, one of the most
consequential.
You know, when Tim Walz was put on the ticket by Kamala Harris last fall, the first call he made after getting the news was to Speaker Hortman. And
what he said is, thank you. Thank you for all you did, because if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't be on the ticket. And that's true because so much of
the remarkable legislation that passed in Minnesota commonly referred to as the Minnesota Miracle, she was the architect of it. She was the person who
not only pushed for it, but was persistent and relentless in making sure that other Democrats understood that power is fleeting and that when you
have power, you have to use it to make the biggest difference for as many people as you could.
And so, truly, you know, she leaves an amazing legacy, a remarkable legacy that's going to impact generations of Minnesotans to come. And it's so
devastating on a very personal level to lose someone I was so close to, but for the state, just she was such an amazing leader. And our heartbreaks,
all Minnesotans, regardless of party are just in pain right now. And I wish I was back home with them.
M. MARTIN: I would imagine so. You know, like you and like so many other people, you know, I woke up to this news and, you know, at first, I was
shocked, but then I thought, should I be shocked? I mean, if you think about it, over the last, you know, months and few years, I mean, there were
two assassination attempts directed at now-President Trump. I mean, the governor of Pennsylvania's home was Firebombed in the middle of the night
while his family slept, not to mention the January 6th mob attack on the Capitol.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, it's shocking on the one hand, but is it really shocking? I mean --
K. MARTIN: Yes, I think it's a fair question, Michel. And the reality is, is I hear people say in -- both this weekend and even before that, this is
not who we are as America. I would say unfortunately, this is who we are, but it is not who we should be and it's not who we need to be. Meaning,
that we all have a responsibility.
If you reject this type of violence and you don't want to see any more of it, we should acknowledge that this is who we've become as a country. But
it does not mean this is permanent. It does not mean this is who we need to be. It requires all of us in this moment, Michel, to speak out against
political violence of any form or any kind.
M. MARTIN: So, let me go back to what you think your role is right now? I mean, I'm -- I don't know that -- you know, I would assume that you didn't
run for the chairman of the Democratic National Committee so that you would be kind of offering condolences to the country at a time like this, but
unfortunately, this is your task right now.
But on a broader sense, what do you see as your role as chairman of one of the great, you know, political parties in America?
K. MARTIN: Well, we're the oldest political party in this country in the oldest and longest enduring democracy in the world. My role and
responsibility right now is singular, and that's to win elections, to put us back into power, to actually help us stop this tyrant in the White House
and what they're doing to destroy the values of this great country.
And so, what does that look like? Of course, and, you know, for me it's a fierce focus on building the infrastructure everywhere. Our philosophy here
is very simple, when you organize everywhere, you can win anywhere. And as a result, we've already started doing that. I'm four months on the job,
Michel. And we have overperformed, our one in almost every special election on the ballot since Donald Trump was inaugurated.
[13:45:00]
There's a huge opportunity in every crisis. And right now, that opportunity is that we can expand our coalition to many people in this country right
now who either left our party, supported Donald Trump and are having buyer's remorse, or people who have felt abandoned by our party right now,
there's an opportunity to give them hope again that their better days are ahead of them, that the Democratic Party is fighting for them and their
families and their communities.
M. MARTIN: OK. You used the word crisis. What is the crisis for the Democratic Party? Is it a crisis of brand? Is it a crisis of message, or is
it a crisis of ideas?
K. MARTIN: Well, I think it's all of it to be -- if I'm being honest with you. But let me start with last spring. There was research, Michel, that
showed for the first time in modern history that the perceptions of the two political parties has flipped, that the majority of Americans now believe
that the Republican Party best represents the interests of the -- and the poor. And the Democratic Party is the party of the wealthy and the elites.
That is a damning indictment on our party for sure.
And certainly, you know, you know this as well as I do, Michel, most people in this country do not vote on policy and issues, they vote on perceptions
and feelings. And there's many people in this country who are feeling forgotten, who are feeling left behind and feeling like the Democratic
Party does not represent them anymore or isn't fighting hard enough for them and their communities. And so, you know, that perception is going to
take time to change.
M. MARTIN: So, whose fault is this?
K. MARTIN: I think it's everyone's fault. All of us who've been involved in this for many years. The reality is, Michel, this is, you know, not a
singular occurrence of one election. We've been losing ground with people for years.
M. MARTIN: Because, why? Because, why?
K. MARTIN: Yes.
M. MARTIN: Why?
K. MARTIN: Why? I think is -- you know, it -- there's a multitude of factors of why we've been losing ground, right? I would argue one is how we
campaign, right? We show up three to four months before an election. The first conversation we have with voters is asking them to do something for
our party and candidates, which is to vote for us. Then we don't show up for two years again, and same time, we have the same conversation.
And so, voters don't believe that we actually care about them as people, as humans, that we don't really invest in their communities, that we're not
invested in their success, right? And so, you know, part of it is how we campaign. We need year-round organizing like we have in Minnesota where the
first conversation we have with voters is not transactional, but it's asking voters what their hopes and dreams are for their communities, and
eventually building a relationship around shared values.
And after and only after we've earned the right to ask for their vote, asking them to vote for our party and candidates. And so, that -- I would
argue one of the reasons we've lost is because of the way we treat voters and their communities as just commodities. The second reason I think we've
lost trust is because when we get into office, we don't actually deliver on the promises we made.
M. MARTIN: So, here's where I have to jump in here and just ask. A lot of your first four months in office has been taken up with -- or at least that
we publicly see disputes with other members of the party, people like the outgoing vice chair, David Hogg. Some of what you're saying about Democrats
sort of overpromising and under-delivering is exactly what he's been saying. So, what is the -- what's the source of the tension here? I mean --
K. MARTIN: Yes. Look, I've never had an issue with what David Hogg is talking about. I think primaries are really important. I think it's
important to hold elected officials accountable. And I also think it's important to have primary, so we bring new voices into the party process.
But let me be very clear, I pushed a neutrality pledge long before David Hogg was ever involved in democratic politics.
In 2017, after the '16 election, I was the author of the Super Delegate Reform on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and I also brought a neutrality
pledge forward at that time, because I believe, actually, the way we win is by expanding our coalition through addition, not subtraction. And that
means --
M. MARTIN: Neutrality pledge means what? That people who are part of the party apparatus shouldn't take sides in the primaries?
K. MARTIN: Party office -- Yes. Party officers shouldn't -- party officers should not be putting their thumb on the scale and pick and winners are
losers. Our job is to stay out of primary fights and let the will of the primary voters prevail. And then, whoever they choose, without interference
from party bosses, right, then we work like hell to get elected.
Why does that matter to me? Because just like David, I believe we win through addition, not subtraction. We win by bringing people into the
party, not by pushing them out. And that's how I've always led it.
M. MARTIN: Well, what was so dangerous about his idea? I mean, David Hogg is a young man who first came to public attention as a survivor of the
Parkland High School shooting in Florida, which is where he went. And became active, as a lot of young people have, around the issue of gun
violence because they are so directly affected in school shootings, which have also tragically become, you know, commonplace. OK.
[13:50:00]
He's gone to college. He's now ran for this position in the party and had this notion of creating a PAC to try to encourage -- well, I guess to
challenge incumbents who he felt were under -- or who people in the PAC felt were underperforming. Why is that such a bad idea in your opinion?
K. MARTIN: I didn't say it was a bad idea. And I think what's important to understand is that you can't do both. You can't be the referee when your
job is to actually create a fair and level playing field for all candidates and frankly, their supporters, right, without interference from party
bosses. And then, also, be involved in a PAC that, in fact, is involved in primaries. You just can't do both.
This was not a question of impugning his motives or what he's trying to do at all. Only to say that our -- we also have a responsibility as party
leaders. Our chief responsibility is to stay out of primaries because it's not up to us to influence it one way or another for an incumbent or a
challenger. Our job is to stay out.
Why is it important to stay out? Because we don't want supporters of candidates to feel like their voice didn't matter, that they didn't have an
opportunity to be heard, that they didn't have an opportunity to fairly compete for our party nomination. And if there's anything that's going to
help us grow the party and bring new voices in, especially voices of younger people who are disillusioned with the party, it's making sure that
party bosses are not putting their thumbs on the scale in any way, shape, or form.
And so, this is not about impugning David's motives at all. I am a big fan of David Hogg's, right. This has never been about David Hogg. Just the
opposite. This has been about my longstanding belief, right, for many years that our party should be neutral in primaries and that understand our party
should be inclusive.
M. MARTIN: I understand. I understand your point. But David Hogg was elected to that position just as you were, and if that's a different vision
of other people and party, I understand that you have a strong view of the matter, but he was elected just like you. Why not just let it play out and
say, that's your mission --
K. MARTIN: It did play out. It did play out. And David decided to resign his position before there was another vote.
M. MARTIN: And what about on something like immigration where, you know, some of the -- clearly, some of the behavior that this administration is
engaging in is distasteful to many Americans, but other people agree with it? How would you recommend that Democrats navigate that?
K. MARTIN: Well, look, Democrats have said that we need border security. In fact, they -- President Biden and others negotiated out with the most
Republican, conservative, member of the U.S. Senate and James Lankford from Oklahoma last year, a bipartisan deal to actually bring forward strict
border security and immigration reform. Who killed that bill? Donald Trump. Donald Trump and the Republicans walked away from it.
And guess what? They now have complete unified control of government. Where is their immigration bill? Where is their immigration policy to actually
make sure that we have border security?
M. MARTIN: Well, they're -- look, they argue that their policy is mass deportation. That's not a secret. I mean, that's what they're doing. So --
K. MARTIN: Right. But my point is that policy is chaotic. It's dysfunctional. It's not actually helping us solve the issue on the border
in any meaningful way. And the point that I'm trying to make to you is that yes, the Republicans can talk all they want about actually putting policies
forward, but what we're seeing on the streets when you're rounding up people indiscriminately, right, when you are essentially creating chaos
around this issue, it's not a long-term solution.
It might make you feel good to round people up and say you're deporting them, but look what's happening around this country. Even Donald Trump and
the Republicans are losing ground on this issue because they don't believe that this is the right way to deal with immigration and to deal with
deportation.
We as a party, of course, we are ready and willing to have the conversation about immigration policy in this country and of course, border security.
The Republicans refuse to do it. And instead, what they're doing is just inflicting chaos and dysfunction throughout this country through these mass
deportations that aren't going to actually solve the issue, it's making it worse.
M. MARTIN: Ken Martin, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for talking with us. I do hope we'll talk again.
K. MARTIN: Thank you, Michel.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, fighting to reclaim their history. For decades, the ancestral remains of tribes from Nagaland in India have been on display in
a British museum since they were stolen during colonial rule. Now, for the first time, a delegation of their Nagaland descendants have made their way
to Pitt Rivers, the museum in Oxford, to try to bring the remains home. And thus, they believe to bring peace to the souls of their ancestors. It's all
part of a worldwide movement, of course, to return remains and artifacts to their rightful communities, with the hope of bringing an end to the long
history of malpractice in museums.
[13:55:00]
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
