Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with "Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History" Author Vali Nasr; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Former Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Interview with U.C. San Diego Professor of International Affairs "How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them" Author Barbara Walter. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 19, 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.
Strikes continue between Israel and Iran. Israel says Iran's supreme leader should not exist. And Trump weighs his options. What's the end goal and
what's happening inside Iran? We have a report from Tehran and I get analysis from Iran expert Vali Nasr.
Then, as Trump diplomacy and foreign policy fails so far, former GOP Senator Jeff Flake tells me about his concerns for America's future on the
global stage.
Also ahead, with domestic terror on the rise in the United States, Hari Sreenivasan speaks to a leading expert on violent extremism about recent
political assassinations there.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
As Israel continues to attack Iran, it says, Tehran crossed the red line after striking a major hospital in Southern Israel. Iran says it was aiming
elsewhere. The Israeli defense minister, Israel Katz, calling Iran supreme leader, Khamenei, quote, "modern Hitler" and saying he cannot continue to
exist.
Now, the target says Iran was a nearby technology park, but Israel says it was a deliberate attack on its civilians. For context, Israel faces growing
international condemnation for its continued bombardment of Gaza and treatment of civilians there. Latest report says another 70 civilian -- 70
people were killed there.
Meantime, the IDF has been instructed to intensify strikes on Iran. Whilst in Iran, citizens fear escalation, and don't know where to turn for safety.
Correspondent Fred Pleitgen is in Tehran now, and he brings us this report from the state television building that Israel attacked this week.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We're inside the Iranian State Broadcasting Company IRIB, which was hit by an Israeli
airstrike a couple of days ago. And you can see the damage is absolutely massive.
I'm standing in the atrium right now, but if you look around, this whole area has been completely destroyed. All of the offices, all of the
technology that they have inside here, the broadcast technology, everything has been rendered pretty much useless.
All right. So, we're going to go inside the building now. They have told us that we need to be very careful. Because obviously there might still be
unexploded parts of bombs in here or something like that.
What we see here is the actual studio where an Iranian state TV anchor was sitting and reading the news when the strike hit. You can see here that is
an anchor desk right there. And of course, when it happened, the anchor was reading the news and then all of a sudden there was a thud. The studio went
black at the beginning, she got up and left, but then later apparently came back and finished the newscast and is now being hailed as a champion of
Iranian media.
Some of the main bulk of the explosion must have been here because this place is absolutely charred. And if we look back over there, that's
actually seems to be the main part of what was the newsroom with a lot of the desks, computers, printers, phones. You can see how much heat must have
been admitted by the impact and by the explosion. The phones that they had here are molten. Here also, the keys molten. This screen. And there's
actually someone's lunch still at their desk standing here, which probably they would've been wanting to eat until they had to evacuate the building.
You can see there's a spoon here that's also been melted away by this explosion.
All of this is playing very big here in Iran. There's a lot of public anger that the Israelis attacked this site. And certainly, the Iranians are
saying that they condemn this and that there is going to be revenge for this.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Tehran.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And of course, as Fred knows, and all of us who've reported from Iran, we had to go to that building, that state television to send out our
reports and to send out the video and other, you know, interviews that we'd collected on the ground. So, it's very well-known.
Now, as President Trump weighs his decision on whether to join this fight, he says his patience has, quote, "already run out with Tehran." And he
believes they're on the cusp of having nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says the U.S. is, quote, "already helping a lot."
[13:05:00]
Meantime, a Western diplomat tell CNN the talks between Iran and European powers are planned for Friday in Switzerland in consultation with the Trump
administration. So, what happens if America was to get involved and what is the goal? To destroy Iran's nuclear cap capability and the Islamic regime?
Vali Nasr is a Middle East expert and author of "Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History." And he's joining me now here in the studio. Welcome
back.
We've talked a lot over the years, but this is really, I think, the culmination of a lot of discussions that we've had. So, first and foremost,
I need to ask you about the diplomacy. You may not know anything about it, but what does that signal as a diplomat? And also, we have reports that the
British foreign secretary is traveling to Washington to meet with Secretary of State Rubio. What do you think this is about?
VALI NASR, AUTHOR, "IRAN'S GRAND STRATEGY: A POLITICAL HISTORY": Well, I think there's a lot of tough talking by President Trump, by Iranians, by
Israelis. But I think the war is entering a very, very critical phase. Israel has done a lot of damage to Iran, but has fallen short of its war
goals. It hasn't been able to destroy Iran's nuclear program completely. And even though it's assassinated a lot of Iran's top military leaders,
they're still fighting. And the state, it hasn't collapsed. So, it's -- and Israel cannot continue this pace of war into second, third, fourth week.
It's going to face limitations to its capability.
AMANPOUR: Why do you say that?
NASR: Well, because it's a smaller state. Because ultimately, it's extremely expensive. Ultimately, every time they shut down Iranian
missiles, they have to use a lot of interceptors. And Israel's aim was to knock Iran out quickly. And that hasn't happened yet.
On the other hand, the Iranians are -- don't want the war to go beyond what it is right now. And in fact, they want to stop. They already send a signal
that if President Trump is serious, first order of business is to get the Israelis to stop their regression. And the Iranians definitely don't want
the United States to come in because then it becomes an order of magnitude bigger threat to them.
The United States similarly does not want to enter this war, because it knows that if it enters the war, by bombing Fordow or bombing anything
else, then it's entering an unknown that might end up be looking like Iraq War of 2003, which you covered, except on a much larger scale.
So, I think in this situation, Iranians and Americans have been communicating back channel through the Arabs, through the Europeans, and
perhaps some of these countries have been freelancing in order to see whether there is a diplomatic path to stopping the war from escalating much
further.
AMANPOUR: But that would require, according to Dr. Ravanchi, the deputy foreign Minister who told me yesterday, the war to stop and then for them
to go into some kind of negotiations. But it was -- it would also require the demand by President Trump that they actually give up their enrichment
capability. It -- I mean, it hasn't been on the cards for them up until now. Do you think that that could change?
NASR: I mean, the problem is that President Trump wants a deal without even negotiating. I mean, ultimately, that was the problem with these five
rounds of talks that they had, that they never became serious negotiations. There was always talk about talking and then President Trump trying to say,
well, this is where you ought to end and this is what I want, and I want you to give me what should be the end result of a negotiation upfront. It
doesn't work like that.
And so, at some point he actually has to get serious with negotiations. It's possible the Iranians maybe more pliable now. The water has to be
tested. He has to put offers on the table. I mean, what is he offering in exchange for you giving up your right to enrichment?
And I don't think the right to enrichment is actually necessarily the only significant issue here. For instance, they have to negotiate what happens
to the stockpile of enriched uranium that's supposedly allows Iran to build nine bombs. I mean, let's say Iran gave up its enrichment right now. Still
can build nine bombs according to Prime Minister Netanyahu. So, what's going to happen to that? What's going to happen to research and
development?
It's the totality of Iran's nuclear capabilities and program that has to be negotiated. And I think maybe the Europeans will start this on behalf of
the U.S. But I think the president has to actually decide to negotiate rather than get a deal without one.
AMANPOUR: And it looks like -- I mean, we -- I don't know whether it's PSYOPs or whatever, but the word that is coming out via leaks and off the
record talks and all the rest of it in Washington is that he is losing his patients. I know he is a negotiator and he says things publicly, but that
he's also more inclined to side with the Israeli view right now, after, you know, months ago not wanting to go and do the military part of it. He seems
to have been persuaded by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Your thoughts?
[13:10:00]
NASR: Yes, that's shifts seems to have happened but I also think that he has walked back from imminent attack, giving it some time to see whether
the Europeans or the Arabs, et cetera, can do something. But the reality is that what he's saying, I'm losing my patience, that I'm going to bomb
Fordow. But what after?
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, that's the big question.
NASR: That's the big question. Is he really ready for Iran that might say that that loOK. OK. they've bombed us, we cannot sit still, we have to
retaliate? They retaliate. Americans get killed, or they attack energy resources. They shut down the Straits of Hormuz, then what? I mean, then
United States is going down a path that ultimately will mean boots on the ground. And then, you know, we're in a situation where he foreswears taking
the United States into.
AMANPOUR: What -- I mean, I just -- I mean, I just sat back when you said boots on the ground. I mean, there's no talk about that at all, not even
Israeli boots on the ground or tanks or anything like that. They have air supremacy and all the rest of it. But do you think -- because they swear up
and down that it's not their official goal, but in their speeches and in their words and in their targeting, do you think regime change is
unquestionably on their agenda?
NASR: Well, let's sort of parse this. Israel and Iran will not go to war with tanks and artillery because they don't share a border, and Israel is a
much smaller country. So, Israel can carry air war, cyber war against Iran. If that does not yield the result, and Israel needs boots on the ground,
its boots on the ground are called the United States of America. That's the strategy. That's why President -- Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to get
America into the war very quickly because then it actually makes Israel's campaign much more effective.
But, you know, you can start wars, you don't know how they end. The United States once they start the war with Iran, then it's not in control of how
that war goes to the next step.
AMANPOUR: And we saw that in Iraq.
NASR: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: Because it was a very -- in terms of military terms, very successful and quick, three weeks before, you know -- and Saddam's regime
had collapsed. But obviously, for years afterwards it was a complete and utter disaster.
NASR: But you know, the kind regime change that, you know, is in American imagination and is similar to Kabul 2001 or Baghdad 2003 requires American
troops to be in Tehran. You cannot change an entire regime remotely. So, we are not going to be talking about a regime change from the outside unless
the United States is in Tehran.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, what are the options if that doesn't happen and somehow the regime collapses? I mean, Mr. Ravanchi said to me, we will survive.
Make no mistake about it. But they -- you know, the Israelis are attacking domestic intelligence headquarters, domestic policing, the kinds of
institutions from the Revolutionary Guards that were responsible for crushing, descent, and all the sort of, you know, internal control. And
other, you know, infrastructure things.
They clearly hope, because they've said it, that this will encourage the Iranian people to rise up. And we clearly know that the Iranian people are
fed up with this regime and want something different. But just map out what are the scenarios if that should happen? Who takes over?
NASR: No, I mean, there are -- first of all I think this -- the way we're thinking about that the Iranian people are fed up with the regime and
therefore, they're going to rise up, it's a little too nice and tidy for me. First of all, what is the organization? Who's the leadership that is
going to lead a mass uprising? It doesn't exist in Iran in that sense.
Secondly, the Iranian people are also really worried about their country becoming Syria, that parts of Iran are going to fall apart. That, you know,
Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Balochistan is going to go. The same brutal guys that were suppressing them are the only soldiers and the force that's
keeping the country together.
So, it's not a given that at this moment, until this war is over, the Iranian public would actually rise up in a war and assist in the
dissolution of their own country. There is no evidence of that. In fact, the opposite is happening in Iran. There is a sense of national unity
around that. We need to we need to protect our country against aggressors. We need to protect our country against destruction. And I think this is
extremely powerful with Iranians. And in fact --
AMANPOUR: Do you think even young people who don't recall the Iran-Iraq war, which is so imprinted in most Iranians minds, I mean, you know, the
majority of people there are young and they don't have those memories?
NASR: No. But they have television and they have smartphones that they've been watching what happened in Syria. They've been watching what happened
in Gaza. And when, you know, defense minister of Israel says, we're going to implement the rules of South Beirut to Tehran, they know exactly what
that means and they're not --
AMANPOUR: You're talking about decimating the Hezbollah leadership?
[13:15:00]
NASR: No. Decimating the infrastructure and the residential buildings, destroying over 100,000 housing units in South Lebanon and South Beirut. I
mean, the Iranians know exactly -- you know, maybe the first 24 hours they thought Israelis are liberated. It was at least a segment of them. They
killed these bad generals who had suppressed us who were awful. But then they saw that Israelis are destroying civilian infrastructure. They've had
residential buildings, et cetera, now over probably 500 Iranians, some say more have died, average people, the kind of people who are protesting,
Pilates teachers, et cetera.
Now, I know Israelis say Iranians have killed but they're not -- the Iranians are not talking about that. They're talking about damage that's
happened there. So, this building that you showed, this radio and television building was extremely powerful message to them that Israel is
not targeting Iran's military, it's not targeting its nuclear facilities, it's targeting the country's infrastructure.
AMANPOUR: Also.
NASR: Also. So, the choice --
AMANPOUR: Because it is targeting.
NASR: Right. So, the choice for that -- but the majority of targets are civilian. I mean, the majority of the targets that they've hit in and
around Tehran, across Iran, in cities, et cetera, to Iranian people in particular, these are not necessarily nuclear --
AMANPOUR: Really? That's --
NASR: Definitely, they're not nuclear sites. Even if they are military sites they, these are not necessarily external combat military sites. These
are sort of basically security institutions of the country. So, with the Iranian public, the choice is not between, we're going to revolt and
overthrow the regime right now, or we sit still, the choice is, do we have a country actually once this is done?
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because, you know, you've written this new book and in it you say, Western policy towards Iran is essentially not fit for
purpose. What do you mean by that?
NASR: Well, we mean that we don't quite understand the assumptions, the historical background, the mode of decision making of this leadership. And
we assume that just because their -- they -- their background was in religion and they speak that language and the leader of the country has a
turban on its head that, you know, they get their inspiration from the Koran and we see this as theocracy. This is a hardened, nationalistic
regime that sees itself defending Iran in its own mind.
It has a historical reference points as continuously yesterday, the deputy foreign minister kept referring to the Iran-Iraq War. So, you have to see
what happened in the Iran-Iraq war. What did they survive? Because that's the historical (INAUDIBLE) that they're using.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you there? Because clearly the historical context that Israel has right now and everybody's, you know, agrees with this, is
that everything changed on October 7th. There was no more patience, there was no more waiting. This was the moment of opportunity. And
systematically, Israel went around to the proxies and now to Iran to do what it's wanted to do for a long time. But that October 7th moment was the
crucial turning point.
NASR: That's right.
AMANPOUR: So, that's the trauma. But are you saying the Iranian narrative also trauma, which is the Iran-Iraq War?
NASR: Well, it has -- that trauma --
AMANPOUR: Much further away?
NASR: -- much further back. And he has other traumas that involved U.S. intervention in Iran in the 1950s, et cetera. For better or for worse, Iran
and Israel basically became this sort of arch enemies in this region. Because if you look at the past 20, 30 years, the Arab threat to Israel has
gone. There is no Arab military that is threatening Israel. And these Arab forces that threaten Israel are non-state actors, and they're all minions
of Iran.
So, Iran basically became the bogey for Israel in the region. And Israel is the only power in the region that Iran fears, respects, et cetera. And
Iran, for a while, thought that it had a stable situation with Israel because these proxies on Israel's borders deterred Israel from attacking
Iran, from carrying the kind of attacks that it's doing right now in Iran. And that be fell apart, not on October 7th, it fell apart the year after
October 7th when Israel all of a sudden turned the tables with the decimation of Hezbollah and then Iran unraveled in Syria.
So, Iran is on his back heel. It's trying to sort of catch its breath and - - but Israel wants to press its advantage. This is the time -- this is not the time to give Iran respite with a nuclear deal. Let it stabilize itself.
This is the time to finish the job. So, they're approaching it with that kind of an attitude. But the problem is that they started this war and it's
not gone the way it went with Hezbollah.
AMANPOUR: What do you mean?
NASR: Well, with Hezbollah, with the pager attack, with the immediate attack, it completely collapsed. So, the state in Iran has not collapsed.
If Israel is going to make the state in Iran to collapse, it has to continue much longer war.
AMANPOUR: What if that's not their goal?
[13:20:00]
NASR: Well, but they -- but the goal is -- I think it's twofold. The goal is the nuclear program, but the goal is also to deal with the larger
Iranian problem that they have, which is, this is a state that is organized against them. That has capabilities that unless you take these capabilities
away from them, unless you make Iran smaller, weaker, less of a player that you will be dealing with an Iranian problem three years down the road. So,
I think they are in a mindset that they are there to eliminate their enemies once and for all.
AMANPOUR: Do you think it was -- I mean, Mr. Ravanchi told me that, you know, they really thought they were going to another round of negotiations
and they thought it was going pretty well and they had told people they thought they were going to be able to make a deal. We talked a little bit
about this. But do you think there is any hope that there is a negotiation and an off-ramp or -- you know, these are hardliners on all sides. The
Israeli government is a hard-line extremist government backed by extremists. The Iranians are basic, fundamental Islamics, and President
Trump is a, you know, major conservative. Some might say, you know, on the extreme wing of the U.S. Republican Party.
So, where do you see, if you do see any, any kind of negotiated off-ramps?
NASR: Well, it is true that they're all hardliners. And I don't mean it only in the religious term. Their hardliners in terms of national security.
Now, there's the current government in Israel really sees national security only solved through military means, not through negotiations, political
path, Palestinians, et cetera. And similarly, you're right with Iran.
But ultimately, there is pragmatism even within the radicalism about what is in their interest, how they're going to survive this moment. And I think
this -- maybe Iran is closer to that because its back is to the wall. If the regime is going to survive, if they want to avoid an American invasion
of the country, they need to find a diplomatic off-ramp.
Now, diplomatic off-ramp does not mean surrender, because that's not diplomacy. So, they coming up with a white flag, giving President Trump
everything is not the definition of surrender -- definition of negotiation. But maybe two weeks from now Israel may also realize that this is going to
be another two-year war. They haven't finished Gaza yet. They don't want to have a two-year war. America's not coming in. And maybe they would become
more open to an off-ramp.
So, I think the perfect diplomatic moment is when both sides and the United States, all three of them are in the same position that they don't want to
continue with the war --
AMANPOUR: War of attrition, yes.
NASR: Yes, exactly.
AMANPOUR: Vali Nasr, thank you very much.
NASR: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN because we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, as President Donald Trump wrestles with going to war with Iran, his MAGA base is in turmoil. Some want no part of another foreign
forever war and rather a focus on domestic issues. Whilst others believe Make America Great Again is a call to exercise global power. Whatever it
may be Trump's foreign policy is changing American's role and influence around the world.
And former Republican Senator Jeff Flake is raising the alarm. He says America's historic leadership role is now in jeopardy, and he's asking his
former colleagues in Congress to speak out. He's also the former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. And he joins me now from Utah. Welcome to the
program.
FMR. SEN. JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ), FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY: Hey, thanks for having me on.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Look, I want to start by asking you as the president mulls his decisions really, clearly Prime Minister Netanyahu is betting his legacy on
once and for all as he sees it dealing with his Iran problem. Do you believe that this is what President Trump should commit the United States
to doing as well? In other words, joining this fight?
FLAKE: Well, I think that's a big, big question and it'll be a legacy defining question in many ways as well. This hearkens back to 2013. If you
remember, in 2012, President Obama drew that bright red line in Syria about the use of chemical weapons. Syria crossed it, and then the Obama
administration decided instead of striking, as they had committed to do, to go to Congress to get an authorization, as a way to really kind of stall it
out. That's what happened.
And then, Russia moved in, brokered some kind of deal, and then literally moved into Syria and it became a really bad scene. And I think is
considered now the biggest foreign policy faux pa of the Obama administration and for what we've had in a while. President Trump has
actually criticized that decision. So, in many ways, we're facing a similar decision today.
AMANPOUR: OK. that's really interesting, because you think it's the same kind of red line, even though U.S. intelligence says that it has not got
the evidence that a decision has been made by Iran to make a bomb and that it could be several years off, even if it does, to be able to test it,
develop it, you know, all the rest of it. So, just your comment on that.
FLAKE: Yes. Let me -- look, I don't think that the president has yet drawn a red line. I would encourage him not to. He has said that Iran cannot get
a nuclear weapon, but he's said that, and all of us have said that for decades now. But to draw another red line would be a mistake, saying if
they do this or if the war stands at this point, we're going to get in. I would encourage the president not to draw that bright red line.
And what I would -- if he does draw a red line, then enforce it, carry through with it, because that affects our allies abroad. It affects our
reputation. And we just can't have that.
AMANPOUR: And I've been reading and listening to various -- you know, previous American CENTCOM leaders and others who've got so much experience
with drawing up precisely these kinds of war plans. Some of them are quite concerned. They basically have said that -- you know, that, for instance,
General Votel has quoted as saying -- Votel, that there could be a lot of problems with the United States doing this, including in international law.
And I just wanted to get your take on this.
It could be seen as, you know, breaching international law to attack a sovereign state based on what exactly. So, I wonder whether you think the
president needs, paradoxically, congressional approval or to widen the circle and get a bigger approval group rather than just making his own
decision.
FLAKE: Right. Well, international law is not my forte.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FLAKE: But the politics of it, I can tell you, the president would do very well to consult Congress. Under the War Powers Act, the president is
supposed to continually consult Congress, but obviously, give notice within 48 hours of any action taken. Then he has 60 days for Congress to actually
act. But because right now, I mean, nobody knows exactly how close Iran is. They're likely very close to a nuclear weapon. But we know one thing, they
aren't making any progress this week or next, or in the next month or so, and that behooves the president, in my view, to consult Congress.
He should want buy-in, bipartisan buy-in. Congress has been reluctant to give that, to put themselves on the line, but the president ought to insist
on that. And it would be good for U.S. foreign policy in general. It would be good for the Congress to get back involved, to flex those muscles. It
hasn't flexed at a long time. It would be good for the president to get more advice from more people because there will always be unintended
consequences as we have seen in Iraq and elsewhere.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to just put to you what my previous guest, Vali Nasr, Iran expert, Middle East expert and who used to be in the State Department
working on what was called AfPak, the Afghanistan Pakistan file under President Obama. He said that if the goal is regime change, which Israel
seems to indicate, given its targeting, given its public speeches, that if the U.S. joins in this operation, the only way to be able to do regime
change, ala Iraq, is to have boots on the ground. And, you know, U.S. on the ground. Do you think that's even a remote possibility for the United
States today?
[13:30:00]
FLAKE: No. No, I don't. And I don't think it should be. I mean, if regime change comes, and we never know when it -- what triggers it. I can tell you
in Syria, back to that example, nobody thought, you know, just a little while ago, eight months ago, that we would see regime change when we did
there.
But I can tell you it, it would be very difficult to achieve. I think if that is our goal. It's more difficult to achieve when that is the goal, the
stated goal because Iran -- certainly the people there disagree with their government but there's a nationalistic feeling that comes in when the whole
world is against you. And that, I would think, we would -- should be very careful about that.
AMANPOUR: And it is kind of being demonstrated at the moment there. I want to ask you now about internal American politics, particularly in Trump's
base. You've probably seen that this has gone all over the place, but this viral video between Senator Cruz and Tucker Carlson about the wisdom of
intervening. He here's a little bit of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: We should be very careful about entering into more foreign wars that don't help us when our country is dying.
SEN. TED CRUZ, (R-TX): When you say --
CARLSON: And our country is dying.
CRUZ: Look, yes, focus on our country. I'm all for it. But the naivete --
CARLSON: You don't need to know how much money these costs. You don't know anything about the country whose government you want to throw -- overthrow,
and you're calling me reckless.
CRUZ: I want to stop a lunatic who wants to murder us from getting nuclear weapons that could kill millions of Americans.
CARLSON: Fair.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And just before I ask your reaction, a Washington Post poll this week finds 45 percent of Americans oppose U.S. air strikes on Iran. Only 25
percent support them, which is a 20-point margin. You are a politician or you were. This is sending a loud and clear message.
FLAKE: Yes. That was -- that exchange was remarkable by the way. And we've seen so far that really whatever the president outlines as his -- of what
MAGA means, people typically have fallen in line. This is a bigger issue. This is something that very -- many people -- very -- feel very strongly
about. You're seeing some members of Congress, you know, voice that, and people like Tucker Carlson. So, this is a test like the president hasn't
faced before. But I suppose that you'll see more of the MAGA base falling in line with whatever the president defines as, you know, America first
policy. But this is certainly a bigger test.
AMANPOUR: I want to broaden it out a little bit because be before all this started and kicked off, you had written an article. You've recently written
an op-ed, and you're talking about, you know, soft power and the ability to, you know, create foreign policy through that and not just a hard
military power.
And you've criticized, I think, this president for the DOGE cuts and USAID and all that sort of soft power. Where do you think that hurts America as
it's facing this kind of crisis right now?
FLAKE: Well, in that piece I wrote -- I mentioned that I had the opportunity to sit down or more of the challenge to sit down with Robert
Mugabi back in 2016 after he'd been a dictator for 35 years in his country and he was panning every U.S. president and every British prime minister
for various offenses. And he got to George H -- George W. Bush. I reminded him that George W. Bush was the author of PEPFAR and that had helped his
country. That was 25 percent of his population was infected by AIDS. And he turned to me and he said, I'll give you that. And he conceded right there
that that program had helped.
And programs -- soft power programs like PEPFAR have not only alleviated human suffering all over, but have helped us with intelligence sharing
agreements in Africa or basing rights, you name it. It has been to our national interests. And I am concerned moving ahead, that we're losing
that.
I'm also very concerned that, you know, just the art of diplomacy, this is kind of the era of, you know, the alpha male and we just say what we want
and try to get it. Tell Greenland that we're going to take them and things like that. And that is just not the way to go forward. Diplomacy is an art
and it's needed, and I know that a number of my Republican Senate colleagues feel that same way.
And what that op-ed I wrote was about, was encouraging them to speak out. They can't speak out on -- at every instance where the president says
something untoward or criticizes a foreign leader. But when a president tells some of our allies that that we might -- he might use force to take
territory, then Republican senators have a responsibility to stand up and say, that is not us, and the president won't do this, and we won't stand
for it. And I hope that they will do that.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: And on the other big issue of Ukraine, you as ambassador to Turkey were quite instrumental in facilitating, you know, the approval of
Sweden to join, because I know Turkey was a, you know, standoffish for a while. And President Trump is not indicating that he's going to continue
helping Ukraine. And the consensus is if he walks away, Ukraine will lose and Russia will win. What do you think your colleagues in Congress should
do?
FLAKE: They should do exactly what Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal on a bipartisan basis did a couple of weeks ago. They showed up in Kyiv and
said, we are with you. That means a lot. I can tell you I knew as a U.S. senator and was reinforced as the U.S. ambassador, foreign leaders pay
attention to the U.S. Congress, particularly the Senate. They know they have six-year terms. They outlast the president. They know that this
president will be gone in three and a half years and many of those senators will remain.
And with -- whether it's trade deals or security agreements, it matters what senators in particular say. And to assure our allies that they're
still our allies. That's really important with Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: And just to bring it back to the United States, the president has sent forces into, you know, quell domestic protests and potentially to
enforce his own agenda. There have been political assassinations in Minnesota. How concerned are you about this being something big and really
sort of changing the face of American politics and indeed the military?
FLAKE: Well, the political violence that happened -- that's happening, particularly in Minnesota and elsewhere is abhorrent and terrible. And I
hope that all of us, on a bipartisan basis, speak out against that. We have to. I think all of us have experienced some of that. I was on that baseball
field back in 2017. It was -- it's a tough issue. We've got to all do better in that regard.
In terms of the president's domestic policy on immigration, he certainly needed to make some changes on the border. He's done so. I think all of us
will cheer when criminals are deported. But when he goes in to farms and meat packing plants and starts rounding up people, I think the political
pressures of their own will come back on that.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And he seems to --
FLAKE: And so, I do think that -- we'll see that level off.
AMANPOUR: Yes. He seems to be struggling with that too, under pressure to walk back some of it. Ambassador Jeff Flake, thank you very much for being
with us. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Another feature of the MAGA decade is an alarming rise in political violence, as we were just saying. Trump himself was shot at
during a campaign appearance. Barbara Walter, a professor of International Affairs at U.C. San Diego is a leading expert on violent extremism and
domestic terror. And she speaks with Hari Serenata about the recent political assassinations in Minnesota and the presence of U.S. troops in
American cities.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Barbara Walter, thanks so much for joining us again on the program.
You know, recently we've had this at least visible uptick in political violence, political terrorism, however you want to phrase it. I mean, we
had a guy who attacked Governor Shapiro's home in Pennsylvania. We had the killing of the two embassy -- Israeli embassy workers in Washington, D.C.
You know, going back of course further, we had the assassination attempt on President Trump.
[13:40:00]
And I wonder, as someone who studies these, what does all this political violence say to you at the moment?
BARBARA WALTER, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.C. SAN DIEGO AND AUTHOR, "HOW CIVIL WARS START AND HOW TO STOP THEM": Oh, it says that
America is on terrible footing right now and it's not likely to get better in the near future. You know, domestic terrorism has been increasing since
around 2012. Nobody really paid attention to it and nobody really talked about it until January 6th. And then, suddenly, it burst into the seam. And
law enforcement has been very, very slow to respond.
You know, really until recently the U.S. government was focused on international terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism. That was the
bogeyman, that was the enemy. Nobody wanted to talk about the rise of white nationalist violence. Nobody wanted to talk about attacks on synagogues and
African Americans and Latinos. Nobody wanted to actually name what it was, which is Americans turning on other Americans with violence.
And so, it was allowed to increase. And we're now seeing more and more of it, and it's impossible to ignore. And nothing has changed to reduce it at
this point in time.
SREENIVASAN: You know, as we are having this conversation, there's still more information coming out about the gunman in Minnesota who disguised
himself as a police officer and he shot and killed Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman, her husband, and also wounded another state
senator and his wife in back-to-back shootings. And I wonder what you think -- why you think these particular lawmakers were targeted? Because he had a
long list of lots of other people he was trying to go after.
WALTER: You know, it's really interesting why Minnesota was the target. And when you look at the data, violence tends to happen in places where
power is being contested. So, not in the deep red states, not in the deep blue states. It happens in the purple states. And if you look historically
about where we've had high incidences of, for example, racial violence or politically motivated violence, it's in the cities and the states and then
globally, in the country where -- in the countries where power is being -- is sort of on the cusp between two different potentially dominant groups.
And it especially happens when the one dominant group is demographically in decline.
And so, if you think about Minnesota, it has a Democratic governor, but the -- it's State House and its State Senate are basically tied. It also was
the scene of the George Floyd murder and the protests started there. There's been a series of policies, progressive policies that have been
passed in terms of abortion rights and in terms of gun control. And these are issues that the far-right is very, very passionate about. And I think
many on the far-right, you know, believe that we're in an existential fight for the future of this country, for the identity of this country and the
frontline is places frontline is places like Minnesota.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I wonder about the reactions that came after that. There were a couple of things that Senator Mike Lee, the U.S. senator had
posted and later retracted. But it said, this is what happens when Marxists don't get their way. And another one, you know, he says, this is nightmare
on Waltz Street. Waltz really trying to -- Waltz Street, trying to connect this to the Democratic governor, Tim Walz. And I wonder, you know, what is
the impact of that kind of rhetoric where that becomes, I guess, almost normal? What does that do to overall the climate of political violence?
WALTER: I want to start by actually saying that Lee retracted that. And we should applaud him for that, because a lot of people haven't been doing
that. And that is key to reducing violence in the future, is not celebrating it, not pointing the finger at somebody else.
But to get to your question, when violence starts to be normalized, when people don't call it out for what it is, they don't call this terrorism,
which is what it is. If they don't take responsibility for it or they dismiss it or they use it for political gain, it normalizes violence. And
if violence is normalized or if it's even celebrated, then extremists -- and those are the ones who tend to use violence, extremists begin to think
that it's not only legitimate but that it's something that they should do and they'll learn that they won't be punished for it.
[13:45:00]
And again, if you have the motive, you don't want progressive policies in your state. You don't want the Democrats in power, and you're being told
for -- from your political leaders that violence is potentially justified. And if you do it, actually they're going to blame somebody else for it,
which means you'll get off. Then the incentive to pursue violence is much higher.
SREENIVASAN: You pointed out something where the political violence has I guess a better chance in places where political power is being contested.
And, you know, you had a recent Substack that was fascinating. It said, why the right turns to violence even when it's winning? And you said in there,
today's Republicans are at peak power. They control all three branches of the federal government. They've appointed the majority of judges. They've
reshaped election laws at the state level. They have the Supreme Court. They have the keys to the Cadillac and can cruise where they want. Why
kill?
So, why are Republicans taking these acts when they have the keys to the Cadillac, as you say?
WALTER: Because they know their power is fragile. They understand that they have lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential
elections. They do not, for the most part, have the support of a majority of the American -- of Americans. And that is also true of many of their
policies. Most Americans, this includes citizens of red states, support stricter gun control laws. Most people in America support the right to
choose. And yet, most Americans don't think we should cut Medicaid and Social Security.
So, the policies that they're pursuing are -- they know might be popular with a minority of quite wealthy Americans, but they're not popular with a
majority of the Americans. So, if you're in this tenuous position where you're in power and you essentially, right now, hold the keys to the
Cadillac, you are very aware that those keys can be taken away quite quickly.
And what they're doing now with violence is not about punishing people who are against Trump or critical of Trump or are liberal judges. They are
pursuing an intimidation strategy designed to quiet people, to deter them from running in the future, they're trying to lock in their power in the
future. This is a future oriented strategy. It's about convincing people that any sort of criticism or any sort of challenge is going to lose and is
actually quite dangerous for them. And they want to essentially get with violence what they can't guarantee at the ballot box.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at political violence and where it's coming from in the United States, it's true that there are incidents from
the far left. But I wonder what does the data show when it comes to which side of the political spectrum is engaged in this and is this proportional?
Is it the same?
WALTER: Yes. We have amazing data on the incidents of political violence here in the country going back decades. And if you look at it, it's
fascinating. In the '60 and '70s, the vast majority of political violence was done by the far left. And I think -- so a lot of people in this country
still associate sort of terrorism and violence in this country with groups, for example, radical environmentalist groups or anarchist groups. This is
what we saw for the most part decades ago.
But domestic terrorism and political violence plummeted after the Timothy McVeigh attacks in Oklahoma City. He was a member -- probably a member of a
far-right militia in Michigan and his attack and just the absolute devastation of that really turned -- shocked Americans into walking away
and pulling their support from a lot of militias and from no longer tolerating this type of violence. And the FBI importantly became quite
aggressive in going after these sorts of violent extremists in this country.
[13:50:00]
And what you see -- if you look at the graph, it just plummeted after 1995. It started to increase again around 2010, 2012. And then, it started to
increase rapidly and it continues to increase today. But the perpetrators of the new violence are quite different. It's overwhelmingly far-right
groups. So, the left, it's still around a little bit. It has increased a little bit over the last few years, but there is exponentially more
violence coming from the far-right and it's much more deadly from the type of violence that's happening on the left.
So, it's not, for example, targeted at infrastructure and buildings. It's targeted at people. And as -- you know, as we saw this past weekend, it's
effect -- you know, it's actually effective, they're actually succeeding in assassinating and intimidating lots of different public figures. So, that -
- what's happening today is coming overwhelmingly from the far-right.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there have been some recent survey data about how comfortable people are with political violence. This is according to the
Chicago Project on Security and Threats. The most recent survey in May revealed that about 40 percent of Democrats supported the use of force to
remove Mr. Trump from the presidency. About 25 percent of Republicans supported the use of the military to stop protests against Mr. Trump's
agenda. And that these numbers more than doubled since last fall. What does that say to you?
WALTER: It says that Americans are becoming more and more unhappy with the status quo, and that they are more willing to use violence to change it.
That they're seeing it as an acceptable tool to get what they want.
One of the most -- for me, one of the most troubling aspects of that new survey is if you look generationally, the group that supports it the most
are Generation Z. So, it's the younger generation actually that is more willing to use violence that sees violence as more acceptable than, for
example, the baby boomers. And I think -- my interpretation of that is that they've grown up in a more violent world. They've grown up in a world where
leaders legitimized violence, where presidents sort of encourage it, where they've watched people engage in what might in the past have been
considered treason and certainly punishable. The January 6th insurrectionists, they've watched them be pardoned.
And so, they've lived in a world where violence is not as shocking and as taboo as it was when you and I grew up. The message this sends is that this
is acceptable behavior. And we're starting to see that in the attitudes of average citizens. And we're starting to see it in what some of the more
extreme elements of the population are willing to do.
SREENIVASAN: Barbara F. Walter, thanks so much for joining us.
WALTER: It's my pleasure. Thank you, Hari.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, as the world watches tensions ratchet up between Iran, Israel, and the United States, this time 16 years ago the streets
were erupting into protest in what came to be known as Iran's Green Revolution. I was reporting this in Tehran as thousands came out following
the disputed outcome of a presidential election between the incumbent radical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi, chanting,
where is my vote and death to the dictator. Those protests were eventually brutally put down, with thousands arrested, dozens killed, and the
opposition leaders still under house arrest. But the desire for freedom is still very much alive.
And just to note as we end this recording, President Trump, according to the White House, will make his decision on whether to enter this war in two
weeks' time. Still calling on Iran to try to make a deal.
Now, on tomorrow's show, we focus on another Iranian freedom fighter, Nobel Peace Laureate Narges Mohammadi. Has dedicated her life to fighting for
women's freedom. She's paid a heavy price for this struggle, arrested 13 times, tried five times, and sentenced to over 32 years imprisonment, as
well as 154 lashes.
Now, with a war raining down on her country, she shares this powerful message with us, sent from inside a safe shelter and speaking directly to
the aspiring Nobel Peace Laureate Donald Trump himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARGES MOHAMMADI, IRANIAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST/NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE (through translator): Here, I ask the president of the United States of
American, Mr. Trump, to not only join in this war, but I ask him to pursue a ceasefire, stop the war and realize peace in the middle east.
[13:55:00]
The outbreak of any war in the Middle East is not only to the detriment of the people of those countries and the Middle East, it is also certainly to
the detriment of people in the West and to people in the United States of America. We must strive towards peace not for the continual expansion of
war in the Middle East.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. 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
