Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Iran Fires Missiles Towards U.S. Bases In Qatar And Iraq; Interview With Former U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry; Interview With Former Iranian Ambassador To Germany Seyed Hossein Mousavian; Interview With Former Head Of Israeli Defense Intelligence Amos Yadlin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 23, 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]
CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But they still, particularly for their own domestic political audience, need to try to show
-- or to save some face, if you will.
It is similar in a sense to after the 2020 killing of Qasem Soleimani, who was the former head of the IRGC. And when President Trump had ordered his
killing, we saw a similar retaliation.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: By the way, also, we have just gotten -- sorry.
We have just gotten confirmation not only do they have -- where they fired it to Qatar, but also in Iraq as well.
WARD: In Iraq as well.
And in Iraq is what we saw after Qasem Soleimani's killing. There was ballistic missiles. The most notable one was on the Al Asad Air Base.
Again, in that instance, the U.S. troops had sort of been given the heads- up. Iran had sort of telegraphed that this was going to happen. They were able to get to cover.
And, as a result, you saw a lot of traumatic brain injury or concussion, but you didn't see the kinds of injuries that you would normally with a
direct missile hit.
COOPER: And, obviously, all bases in this region have been on high alert now for quite some time.
I want to bring in Becky Anderson, who is on the phone from Abu Dhabi.
Becky, I understand you have some new information.
BECKY ANDERSON, CNN ANCHOR, CONNECT THE WORLD: Yes.
And I just spoke to somebody who briefed on the matter and knows what is going on. I spoke to them about five or six minutes ago, when the missiles
were incoming. The booms that were being reported, at that stage, they said were likely the air defense systems working. But those missiles were very
much directed at Al Udeid Air Base.
As you have been discussing, that is the very significant military presence in Qatar. That base has been evacuated over the past few days. And this
source describes it as the following. They describe this as a very symbolic act by the Iranians. After all, the Qataris more than anybody else in this
region of the Gulf have very good relations with the regime, even when the Saudis and the UAE didn't.
And those relations have got better over the past couple of days. The Saudis have a close relationship with the regime in Iran. And whilst there
has been concern, frankly, all day that something was imminent potentially on this base or on any other bases around the region, including Iraq and in
Syria, of course, they felt that, if there was an attack that Al Udeid wouldn't be the first because they retain such good relations.
In fact, I was reminded that just on Saturday the Qatari prime minister was in Istanbul meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, trying to get the
talks between the U.S. and Iran back on track. And they felt like, I was told, that they were making very good progress on Saturday night.
And then, of course, the U.S. strikes happened on Iran in the early hours of Sunday morning regionally. So this is not a shock, because this has been
telegraphed to Qatar all day, effectively. But they see this as highly symbolic. And whilst they say, loOK. going forward, this will probably be
worked out diplomatically. I mean, the damage wrought to the relationship between Iran and Qatar will be significant.
The damage -- just the perceptual damage for citizens, the trust deficit that will now be in place between these two countries is really hard to
overestimate at this point. I think it would be fair to say that the region is very much on high alert for further action. It is not clear whether
these attacks that we are seeing now are one-off attacks.
The Iranians have certainly talked about proportional attacks. And the Americans have talked about their strikes on Iran being a one-off at this
point. So it's very difficult to know what happens next, but certainly a real sense of shock, despite the fact that these were -- there was
intelligence to suggest that all day this could happen.
COOPER: Becky Anderson, we will continue to check in with you.
I want to check in with CNN's Kaitlan Collins, who is at the White House.
Kaitlan, what are you seeing there? What is happening at the White House?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Yes, Anderson, right before we got confirmation that these strikes had been launched from Iran towards the air base in
Qatar, I was just upstairs at the White House.
And as of right now, what we do know is that the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Dan Caine, is inside the Situation Room monitoring this as we
speak. He's there with the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. I truly just got a phone while you were talking with Becky.
The president himself is not inside the Situation Room as of this moment. He is scheduled to have a 1:00 meeting in the Oval Office with members of
his national security team. We will see if that and what's developing and playing out right now changes the location of that meeting and where
they're talking.
[13:05:00]
But, obviously, right now, U.S. officials are just trying to get a sense of the scale and scope of this attack, because that is going to determine how
the United States responds to this. One thing that the president has been warning about ever since he was toying with this idea of the United States
striking Iran was saying that Iran cannot attack U.S. forces or U.S. assets in the region.
And this base that we're talking about in Qatar right now, the president was actually just there, Anderson, speaking to U.S. forces who were
stationed there in the middle of May when he was on this multicountry Middle East trip. He went there and spoke with the forces. So it's
obviously a base that he knows incredibly well as they are continuing to monitor this.
They knew that Iran would likely respond after they struck on Saturday night. But what they want to know is, how much a weakened Iran can respond
and what exactly the extent of this looks like. And that has been the concern that we have been hearing from the president and his Republican
allies who are skeptical.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: And, Kaitlan, we just got word that 10 missiles were fired at Qatar, one at a facility in Iraq. That's the latest word that we have right
now. But continue, please.
COLLINS: Well, and with those 10 missiles, I mean, that is something that the Joint Chiefs chairman and the defense secretary are obviously going to
be tracking to see what exactly the extent of that looks like and if they believe it's kind of a measured response.
Obviously, this happened when the president was in office the last time with the Soleimani strike.
COOPER: Yes.
Kaitlan, I have got to jump in. I have got to go to Fred Pleitgen. He is on the phone from Tehran.
Fred, what are you seeing there? There was -- there have been strikes in Tehran over the last 12 hours or so.
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there certainly have.
There's been a lot of strikes actually on the Iranian capital, Anderson, one very close to the place where we're staying. I would say about a block
down, maybe about 500, 600 yards from where we were, there was a massive Israeli airstrike and think plumes of smoke all over the northern part of
the city here. But if we're looking at right now the Iranians certainly also very much saying that what they're calling this retaliation has
started. I'm watching Iranian state TV right now, looking at Iranian state media. And they're calling this a robust and successful response to
America's aggression.
And right now, if we're looking at media, they're only mentioning the Al Udeid air base in Qatar as a place that has been struck. However, they also
say that there is going to be a statement from the military coming out very soon. So the Iranians are clearly also projecting this here at home on
state TV telling the people that their response is now under way.
But it does indeed come, you're absolutely right, after what were a lot of airstrikes today on the Iranian capital, also west of the Iranian capital,
and where you really heard throughout the course of the day several times that airstrikes had happened and some of them really rocking a lot of
buildings in areas that we we're in as well, Anderson.
COOPER: Fred, just quickly, are they portraying this on Iranian state TV as strike, this is the response, or this is the beginning of response?
Because we're now -- we just got worried there was 10 missiles fired toward Qatar, one in Iraq. Was there an indication that this is part of an ongoing
series of strikes or did they did they not specify?
PLEITGEN: Yes, well, they're not specifying this at this point in time. They're saying that the that the response has been launched.
But it's a interesting question, because we did hear from a senior Iranian official today, saying that they wanted to make the United States pay and
that, in total, they're gearing up for a conflict both with the United States and Israel that could last up to two years, saying that they were
prepared for something like that, saying they believed that they had the public backing for something like that as well.
So, clearly, the Iranians gearing up for what they could -- believe could be a longer conflict with the United States, an ongoing conflict that could
involve military action as well. Whether or not in response to the strikes on the nuclear facility this is a one-off or this is something where the
Iranians might launch further strikes as well, at this point in time, they're not saying.
But I think that they do believe that right now they are situated in a direct military confrontation, not just with Israel, but also with the
United States, Anderson.
COOPER: All right. Fred Pleitgen, appreciate that.
Of course, it remains to be seen what Iran's military capabilities still are. Israel several days ago said that they had eliminated as many as half
of the launchers for ballistic missiles that Iran had. Obviously, Iran has a number of shorter-range missiles as well. It remains to be seen what
their capabilities really are.
Retired U.S. Navy Commander Kirk Lippold joins us now. He was the commanding officer --
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Iran has fired 11
missiles in total towards American military bases in Qatar and Iraq. This after it vowed to punish the United States as well as keep up its
retaliation against Israel following this weekend's attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.
[13:10:00]
This is where the U.S. tested its biggest bomb ever, the 30,000-pound MOP. Several of them on Iran's underground nuclear enrichment facility, Fordow.
U.S. bombs and missiles also struck two other sites at Natanz and Isfahan.
President Donald Trump is declaring it a huge win saying he has, quote, "obliterated those sites." But now his vice president is clarifying those
comments saying they have probably delayed, but not destroyed Iran's capabilities. And furthermore, they are not certain about what's happened
to Iran's enriched uranium stockpile.
The fast move came as a shock to many, especially Iran after the president opened a two-week window to make his decision. Technically, he was within
those two weeks, but much earlier than anybody thought. So, is there any room left for a diplomatic way out of this, and what is the end game? Let's
get to all of this with the former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who's joining me now from West Newton, Massachusetts for an exclusive
interview.
Secretary Kerry, welcome to the program. And of course, so important to have you. And you negotiated the only diplomatic arms control accord, if
you like, with Iran over its nuclear deal. First, I need to ask you about this Iranian response. Clearly a response was expected. What do you think
from what you've heard, and we don't even know whether any have hit their targets yet?
JOHN KERRY, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, Christiane, thank you. Look. I've just heard about this just like you have. So, I have absolutely
zero briefing or knowledge of exactly what's unfolding. But clearly, Iran had to respond in some way and they made it clear that they would, and I
think the administration anticipated that.
The real question now is, what's the impact? How big? Is this a serious effort to counter in a warlike way, or is it a message? Is it a sort of
message sender? And then, people will work in good faith to try to get to the diplomatic table?
I mean, what's important to remember here is there's no military solution to this. This can go on and on. It could get uglier and more and more
dangerous with greater and greater implications for a global basis. This is very dangerous.
My hope is that this is more performative than consequential and that it will satisfy their need to be able to respond. I think President Trump
needs to clearly -- it'll be very judicious about measuring that and understanding it, and hopefully, take the higher ground of getting back to
the table for the simple reason that we don't have any visibility anymore, insight or real -- the depth of insight that we had with the nuclear
agreement that we put in place.
I mean, with the nuclear agreement we put in place, we had huge insight as to what they were doing. We had stopped them from developing in whole
sectors. We have destroyed their plutonium reactor, which they were weeks away from being able to have bomb material. We were able to have, you know,
tens thousands of centrifuges destroyed. We required them to destroy the core of what existed in Fordow. And they did, they dismantled. They --
under watchful eyes from the International Community.
Remember that we brought five nations and the United Nations to the table, and we put in place the strongest nuclear agreement that has been agreed to
by any countries, anywhere in the world since the 1950s or '60s. And so, we just need to get to a negotiation in order to be able to really solve this
problem.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I want to ask you about that, but first I want to ask you one more question about this because, as you said, it was highly
telegraphed. Iran has been saying since the, you know, U.S. attack that it would have to respond. And some have called for a big response, some of the
hardliners inside Iran.
But what does -- I mean, you know, the U.S. obviously has experience with this. When Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the head of
the Quds force of the IRGC, it was clearly telegraphed that there would be a response from Iran. And from my memory, it, it did hit a base but did not
cause the damage and death that it could have caused. And that was what people said was a telegraph calibrated face showing -- showing face
response.
Do you think this Trump administration, depending on what is the result of this, do you think him and the people around him would understand that or
he's promised to retaliate in his speech overnigh, the Trump, if Iran hits any U.S. target?
[13:15:00]
KERRY: Christiane, it's impossible for me to speculate as to exactly what's going on in either the president's mind or the National Security team. And
I just don't want to do that. I do think people have to be realistic here in understanding what the choices are. Iranians -- Iran is a proud, proud,
proud nation. One of the things I learned in my negotiations was the level of pride was just enormous. They also have been committed to the
destruction of Israel. That's a cultural, almost religious component of their policy. And so, it's very hard to say what exactly is going to bring
them back to the table.
But I know this, you cannot bomb away the memory of how to make a bomb. You can't bomb away the knowledge that they have developed. You can't bomb
away, you know, the broad array of technicians who've been working on this for years who will go back to work if that's the mission they're given by
the leadership of the country.
AMANPOUR: OK.
KERRY: And one of the dangers here is that the more this goes on in a military way, the more power goes to the worst defenders within Iran, the
IRGC. And that's not good for anybody.
AMANPOUR: Well, just quick, I want you to clarify that because there's a whole amount of talk now, even Trump is saying, and I don't know whether he
is being egged on by the prime minister of Israel or the others who have regime change in their mind.
But you have just raised a potential result of regime change, that it's not some happy clappy democracy overnight, it could be a much harder line. And
you've just raised the Revolutionary Guard and others have as well. Do you fear that that is a risk that could happen?
KERRY: I think it's an enormous risk. I think it's beyond a risk. It's the greater likelihood because they're the people with the guns and with the
military power. And if you look at Evin Prison and the way people have been treated and so forth, we know that these guys aren't -- haven't been
natural good actors in so many ways.
You know, I think that what's important here, I mean, none of us who've been involved in this over the years look happily at the choices that Iran
has made, feeding the power of Hezbollah, the Houthis, supporting Hamas, and engaging in internal activities that we inherently really find
repugnant. But we have to find a way to try to solve a problem. That's what we did with President Obama.
You know, we had a lot of choices. We had the MOP back then. In fact, this bomb was developed some time ago, back in 1991, and then refined. It hasn't
been used since. But the fact is that we have other options available to us.
We came -- I mean, the model of what happened with the prior agreement is really a significant marker for what needs to happen now. And the Iranians,
you know, in fairness here, I mean, I don't like, as I've described, much of the behavior and I think that what a United States, the military showed
they could do and did the other day is a remarkable operation and they deserve enormous credit if that's the choice that was made.
But that choice has to translate into a diplomatic process, and I don't know if it's possible to restore what was there before. We had massive
insight as to what they were doing in their program. Yes, it was very worrisome what the IAEA reported a few days ago. But if we didn't -- if we
hadn't pulled out of the agreement and if we hadn't subsequently, you know, taken the positions we've taken with respect to how you negotiate, we could
have really come back to a place of reasonable --
AMANPOUR: Well, then, I want to ask you - this is very --
KERRY: This has to calm down somehow.
AMANPOUR: OK. But about the negotiations and you know, what happened, of course, you said, we pulled out, President Trump in his first term pulled
out of that deal. So, this is what we're getting from a former nuclear negotiator who basically said about the negotiations that then were
interrupted by Israel's first bombing round about 10 days ago.
So, this negotiator says that they had agreed, both the Iranians and Steven Witkoff, the special -- you know, the special envoy, on a draft. They --
and then they were meant to go to another round on the Wednesday and then further rounds on that weekend, which they then didn't. The United States,
he says, canceled the Wednesday meeting and Witkoff changed its position to zero enrichment.
[13:20:00]
As you know, there's been shifting U.S. positions. Trump had first said they could have some, they can't have a bomb ever, like everybody says. But
then it changed radically. And they -- then they, you know, met for another round. Witkoff stayed very shortly. Left the meeting. And then they agreed
to meet on the Sunday. And as we all know what happened.
So, you know what changed was the administration decision not to let any enrichment on Iranian soil. So, then tell me about how you get back to
diplomacy when the Iranians believe that this was a deception just to allow Israel to attack and they -- and then, obviously, the U.S. decided to join?
And then, apparently, they were going to talk about this consortium thing about having enrichment off site, so to speak, to thread that needle.
KERRY: Right.
AMANPOUR: So, to me it looks like there was a missed opportunity at diplomacy. I don't know what it looks like to you.
KERRY: Well, I don't know all of the details. I mean, you've certainly got some reporting there. I can't vouch for it.
AMANPOUR: Right.
KERRY: I'm not being negative about it. I just don't know if that's the way it unfolded. What I do know is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has for years
been seeking to bomb Iran. And he came to the Obama administration and asked, he subsequently tried to persuade other presidents. And it didn't
until now become a reality. So, what changed in that is something I'm not - - I'm able to -- certainly, I'm not going to speculate publicly about it, but it -- you know, something obviously did change.
But again, let's come back to the reality of where we are, Christiane. We don't want this to be a wider of war. The whole region doesn't want that.
The world doesn't want that. It's the last thing we need. And the issue is what's the off-ramp now that we have, in fact, bombed? And that off-ramp is
going to take a considerable amount of diplomatic effort and restraint at this particular moment.
If everybody goes whole hog, including Israel and the United States joining together, this is going to be one of the wildest confrontations that we
have seen, because it's not going to be one that is controllable. And you have the entire Middle East, you have Russia, China, India, others who will
have very strong views about, you know, where this started and how it started.
This is the danger of having pulled out of the agreement, just pulled out. And the IAEA said at the time, the agreement was working, Iran was living
up to that agreement. And they didn't get the full sanctions relief. And then the president pulls out and they decided, OK, how do we defend
ourselves now? I'm not in -- you know, supportive of any of the choices that Iran has made.
They've been, you know, worse than mischievous within the region and have caused a lot of suspicion and doubts about their longer intent here. But
good diplomacy now has to take the lead. And the president, I hope, will exercise restraint and take the higher road in order to try to get back to
that table, which is so critical.
You cannot stop this process. I mean, where is the material that was in Fordow? Where -- you know, as I said, you cannot bomb away the memory and
the established procedures that they have now learned. They've mastered the nuclear cycle. They know how to make a bomb. The only issue is, will they
find some way now to feel compelled to do that or will they want to join the community of nations and begin to come to a commerce place and reach
some kind of an accord? And as I say, that's going to be very difficult.
AMANPOUR: So, the deputy foreign minister, who you probably also know, might have been part of the JCPOA negotiating team, Ravanchi, said to me
that --
KERRY: He was.
AMANPOUR: Yes, exactly.
KERRY: At that time.
AMANPOUR: Yes. He wanted to -- they wanted to continue --
KERRY: I know him quite well from that.
AMANPOUR: -- even now since the American bombing, they -- he has said that they will not pull out of the NPT. That was a fear that they would pull out
of this, you know, observing role by the NPT and then go even further dark and further underground.
But to your point about the intelligence, about -- and this is crucial because it's -- you know, it's -- all those years ago, this happened in
Iraq, and Trump actually said, you know, in his 2016 campaign, Iraq was a big fat mistake, those are his quotes. And he accused the, you know,
government of lying about intelligence that they -- and as we know, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
[13:25:00]
So, he was very clear that he opposed that. Now, we're having another debate on the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, which is, as
you've said, in the intelligence says, Iran does not have. But here is what Secretary Rubio said on the Sunday morning show when asked about the
intelligence, which is also U.S. intelligence, here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let me follow up on a phrase you just word, weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did
not see intelligence that the supreme leader had ordered weaponization?
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: That's irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media, that's an irrelevant question.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. But that is the key point --
RUBIO: They have everything they need to build a weapon.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that.
RUBIO: No, it's not.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, it was.
RUBIO: No, it's not. No, I know -- well, I know that better than you know that, and I know that that's not the case.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But I'm asking whether the order was given?
RUBIO: You don't what you're talking about. And the people who say that -- it doesn't matter if the order was given, they have everything they need to
build nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, you know, I've got deja vu all over again. This is precisely the argument that was made as a justification for the war in
Iraq, which turned out to be a disaster for the United States and for the region. So, are you concerned that your successor, Secretary Rubio, does --
believes that any intelligence is irrelevant? This intelligence anyway.
KERRY: I think it's a bigger question than that, frankly. The decision to the best of our knowledge in the intel community had not been made, but he
is absolutely correct. They have the materials they need.
AMANPOUR: Right.
KERRY: And the -- there was a rather alarming report by the IAEA to the effect that they had about 60 percent level of enrichment, and they had
increased their -- increased the level, you know, of their amount of enriched material available to be able to make a bomb.
So, you know, that creates a cause for worry. It doesn't necessarily create a cow's bell eye, as we know, where you automatically go in. You can show
at the table, this is what we know, this is what you're doing, and this is how we negotiated with them for over three years, and we fought over these
things. But we got a final agreement that had television cameras in every single facility, radio seals on all of their centrifuges. If they're
opened, you would know it.
We had 130 additional inspectors on the ground who were personally going in and making these inspections. We had centrifuges destroyed. So, they had no
program fundamentally. And we had the incredible visibility on that program, and we were able to tell exactly what they were doing. So, that if
they didn't keep their agreement, we still have the ability to bomb them. And we made that very, very clear. If you do not live up by this, then you
are subject to the possibility of a military solution.
AMANPOUR: Right.
KERRY: But they chose to go the other route and we chose to go the other route. And we literally had a nuclear weapon taken off the table. And some
people tried to say, well, it's sunset. No. Only a couple of provisions in its sunset. The agreement stayed in effect as long as Iran, for a hundred
years, 200 years was dealing with uranium and dealing with enrichment.
We had total guarantee of insight, and we had something called the additional protocol, which provided even more insight than ever before in
these nuclear agreements. So -- and we did that, the nuclear additional protocol came about because of what happened with North Korea, where North
Korea said it was going to do A, B, C, and didn't. So, we came with a whole new regime, new protocol to be able to deal with that problem.
AMANPOUR: All right.
KERRY: So, that's really the issue, if you don't want to have a wider war, which apparently maybe a few people want, but if you don't want to have a
wider war, and I think the broad array of nations in that region are really nervous about what might happen here, it's the last thing that we leave on
this planet is yet another war and continued escalation.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KERRY: So, I hope wiser voices will prevail, and we'll find the road ahead.
AMANPOUR: Well, listen, thank you very much for this because you were there in the room and you did get a deal, and we've seen the danger now come to a
head when that deal was thrown out. Secretary of State, John Kerry, thank you very much for being with us.
Now, we're going to get more on the breaking news of Iranian missiles fired at U.S. bases with Correspondent Nick Paton Walsh. He's been following
developments. Tell us what we know now.
[13:30:00]
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. At this point, Christiane, I think the key thing is to assess the damage at
this point. The Qataris have, through their foreign ministries, said that the missiles were all intercepted and there were no deaths and injuries.
This is clearly were what's responsible for the fireworks you're seeing there remarkably over the skies of Doha, near the Al-Udeid American base.
The American base vacated, evacuated in the past days, clearly as concerns rose of a potential Iranian retaliation in the region.
And we've also heard from the secretariat of the Iranian National Security Council saying, and I paraphrase here, that the number of bombs dropped or
the number of weapons used in these retaliatory strikes against the United States are equal to the number used by the United States in their strikes
on nuclear facilities.
Now, I should point out, we don't know how many missiles have been fired here entirely, but 75 I think was the total fired by the United States.
That does not match some of the initial reporting as to how many missiles are followed here, but ultimately, that's not really the consequence here.
The important thing is what got through. And in Qatar we are hearing initial reports, the answer is zero. And the fact too that the Iranians are
very clearly telegraphing here, that this is proportionate, that they are saying, we fired exactly the same number that you fired at us, essentially,
hoping to draw a line under.
And their statement goes on to say that this attack, clearly against the territory of Qatar, but U.S. assets on that territory is not meant in any
way to be aggression towards the sisterly nation of Qatar. So, clearly, I think we're seeing a remarkable moment of telegraphing building up to here.
I mean, literally talking on cable news about the possibility of these attacks before they happen.
The fact that this base was well known in Qatar Al-Udeid, key to U.S. central commands operations across the busiest region they have, Syria,
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan all the major wars really of the last 20 years or so had been mostly emptied of personnel and key aircraft because of the
concern of this, that was well publicized, Iran would've known that, and these missiles still fired at it with adequate warning for Qatar to be able
to close its airspace in the previous hours for this morning, the U.S. embassy to tell its staff and Americans to shelter in place.
You couldn't have much more telegraphing. And this does, to some degree, echo what we saw after the killing of Qasem Soleimani in 2019, that
occurred, and there was swiftly afterwards telegraphed response from Iran towards American facilities in Iraq.
So, we don't know the full extent of this. We don't indeed know if multiple bases have been targeted. The initial indications of that it is not the
case. But I think at this point we are seeing a very loud after days of rhetoric bid by Iran to show that it's able to respond, but not do anything
to potentially further escalate the situation.
Bear in mind, this is a country whose military capabilities are significantly weakened. They are potentially down to maybe a thousand
missiles that can hit Israel. These would've been a potentially a shorter- range to hit Qatar, but this is a military degraded heavily over the past 10 days. Potentially here, I think, trying to show that it has some
deterrent value but also, to be honest, Christiane, through the telegraphed and frankly, probably at this point what we can see, not particularly
effective nature of this attack, also emphasizing their weakness at this point, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Really important to get that clarification and we will continue to monitor, obviously. Nick, thank you.
Now, just before Iran fired those missiles at American bases in Qatar and Iraq, an Iranian official told CNN that it wants the U.S. to, quote,
"directly pay for the war." Well, maybe this is it. Iran's foreign minister met Russian President Vladimir Putin today at the Kremlin.
Now, while Russia does support Iran diplomatically and Iran supports Putin's war in Ukraine, there is no indication Putin will join Iran in any
military escalation. On Sunday, Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister, said his country had the right to self-defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBAS ARAGHCHI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: The world must not forget that it was the United States, which in the midst of a process to forge a
diplomatic outcome, betrayed diplomacy. In accordance with the U.N. charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran
reserves all options to defend its security interest and people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, there are currently tens of thousands of U.S. troops, we said, based around the Middle East, and Trump has promised an overwhelming
response if they were targeted. But as we also discussed with Secretary Kerry, if this is a proportionate response, if it is the only response. If
there are no deaths, no injuries, then he said, the Trump administration, any administration should, you know, understand the proportionality and try
to get back to the negotiating table. We'll see how the U.S. responds.
[13:35:00]
But Hossein Mousavian was one of Iran's main nuclear negotiators. He served as Iran's ambassador to Germany. And he's joining me now from Paris to talk
more about this. Welcome back to our program. Can I first ask you what you make of this response? It was telegraphed by Iranian State Television. And
now, we are hearing the details that apparently it was 11 missiles they say in proportionate response to the number of bombs, you know, from the MOP
bombs that the U.S. dropped. What do you make of this response and do you think it will be the only response?
SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN, FORMER IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO GERMANY: I think, Christiane, it was clear for everyone that Iran will respond and the
response also was expected to be proportionate. Now, just we have heard, they have attacked American military base in Qatar and Iran has publicly
said this has been proportionate response. If this is the Iranian position, it means you have launched X number of bombs and we have launched X number
of bombs.
The most important issue is exactly what Secretary Kerry said, there is no solution, military solution, only diplomacy. And I hope after this military
escalation between Iran and the U.S. both negotiators would go back to negotiating cable.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you though, because Iran had to make a decision, obviously, we've spoken in depth about how it has been weakened, both with
its military capacity at home and with its proxies who are its foreign shock troops abroad. It's been very, very you know, disadvantaged in that
level.
But the supreme leader, Khomeini, had to decide, right, exactly what to do so that he didn't, he hopes, invite an even stronger U.S. response and that
the regime survives. Is that a calculation that was going on, do you think, in the establishment as they made this response?
MOUSAVIAN: Christiane, I think always there has been a miscalculation on both parties and also western countries all they -- frequently have made
and have had miscalculations. We remember the eight years' war when they -- when the U.S., Europe, Soviet Union, all Arab countries, they were united
to support invasion of Saddam, money, weapon, the most sophisticated weapons. Even that time, Iran did not have missile. And the narrative was
that oh, Shah is gone and Iranian army is in disorder. This is the best time to attack and disintegrate Iran.
And then, you notice, despite of the consensus internationally from the Eastern Bloc to Western Bloc, Arab countries, everybody supported with
hundreds of millions of dollars of sophisticated weapons and money, everything, propaganda, political. At the end, Iranian resisted 80 years
and did not give a millimeter of the land. And Saddam is gone and the Islamic Republic is there. I mean, this is always the wrong narrative
hearing --
AMANPOUR: OK. OK. So, let me ask you then to follow up on that. I mean, we're talking about the 1980s. And at that time the leader, Ayatollah
Khomeini, said that, I will have to drink reluctantly from the poison chalice, right, the cup of poison in order to end this war. Is that what
Khamenei is going to have to do? Because Trump has said, you know, surrender or else, or we need to, you know, make peace or else. Is there a
calculation beyond this response that the supreme leader has to make?
MOUSAVIAN: See, Christiane, when in 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini said about the poison, it was because before this statement, he said he's going to fight
until Saddam is removed. The only decision he made, he decided not to continue the war until Saddam is removed. Otherwise, he could save the
country with his leadership.
But at the moment, what is the most important issue on the table? Is it about nuclear or beyond? I personally believe Prime Minister Netanyahu, his
objective is not nuclear, is regime change is even this disintegration of Iran.
Whether this is American objective or not, this is the big question, whether President Trump is only does not want nuclear bomb and his issue is
nuclear, or he is after regime change. If he is after regime change, then you can, I think, thing about a further escalation, regional war,
transregional war, and a total disaster.
[13:40:00]
But if his issue is about Iranian nuclear bomb, they have three major issue, Christiane, on the table. One is about the IAEA cooperation with
Iran, technical ambiguities, technical questions, or what, or possible military dimension issues.
As secretary Kerry said, during 2015, the nuclear deal had and has the highest level of transparency and verification and inspection measures.
Therefore, on this issue, they can exactly implement the same deal because the deal was already implemented. Every IAEA technical ambiguities were
removed. This was resolved. Therefore, they have the experience, they have the deal on the verification.
The second big issue is about the Iranian stockpile. First of all, as John Kerry said, Iran was not going to have such a big stockpile. When President
Trump withdrew while Iran was in full compliance with the deal, Iranians also minimized their commitment within the JCPOA and try to increase the
level and capacity of the nuclear program as a bargaining chip.
AMANPOUR: OK. OK. So, let me stop you there.
MOUSAVIAN: That's why --
AMANPOUR: Because I understand what you're saying, as a bargaining chip. But clearly, they misjudged, they misread the room, they misread Israel
after October 7th. They misread Trump. And they -- this bargaining chip clearly backfired against them.
So, the real question is, if they want to get back to a table, are they going to, as Kerry suggested, remove -- I mean, I'm extrapolating, remove
this commitment to the destruction of Israel and actually go to some consortium, which you, I think were involved with, which involves basically
threading the enrichment needle, what they need for nuclear program that's civilian, but of formal Iranian territory. Is that going to be what they
might do?
MOUSAVIAN: First of all, Christiane, I really don't know what would be the final position of Iranian government because I'm not in the government, but
I also believe I have written for two years that there is a need for ceasefire between Iran and Israel. And Iran and Israel, they should go back
to the U.N. charter and respect the U.N. Charter, not to threaten each other. Therefore, this should be, I think, a principle that Iran and
Israel, none of them, they should threaten each other. They should respect the U.N. charter.
The second is about the nuclear deal, about the stockpile. I heard Araghchi actually told Steve Witkoff during the first three random negotiations that
if there is a deal, Iran would be ready to export or to dilute the 400- kilogram of stockpile. Therefore, there would be no worry about Iran to make 10 nuclear bombs. And finally, the concern is about whether Iranian
enrichment would be military in enrichment or civilian enrichment. If they enrich below 5 percent, definitely this is civilian.
And in mid-term and long-term, as you said, and I have already written, there could be a regional consortium between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Emirate,
Qatar and other countries supervised by International Atomic and Agency, like European Urenco Consortium. This would be multilateral supervised by
International Community.
AMANPOUR: And then, last thing then is, because you're a former nuclear negotiator I, asked the deputy foreign minister, Mr. Ravanchi, before the
U.S. entered this war, whether if the regime survives. because you have said, you know, you think the Israeli position is regime change, that they
would ghosts in -- you know, in secret and actually take a decision to make a bomb because of what's happened. And he said, no, never. We never have,
we never will, et cetera.
Do you think they might if this doesn't get back to a negotiating table? Is that an option like North Korea that's left on the table?
MOUSAVIAN: I think Christiane, it depends to the end, the state of the current situation. If the U.S. and Israel would stop attacking Iran, Iran
will stop. If the U.S. comes back to negotiation table, Iran would come. If the U.S. would respect international rules, laws, regulations, which is
NPT, Iran would be ready to make a deal and accept the highest level of transparency, open nuclear program, and then go to consortium.
[13:45:00]
But if the objective is regime change and they are using the nuclear just as an instrument to bring this country to a total collapse, I think
Iranians ultimately would go for nuclear bomb.
AMANPOUR: Gosh. All right. Well, we've been warned Seyed Hossein Mousavian, thank you very much indeed.
Now, let us get more on the Iranian missiles that were fired at U.S. bases or a base, we don't know, with Becky Anderson. She's been following these
developments from Abu Dhabi. So, what's the latest on the impact that these missiles had?
ANDERSON: Yes. Well, we have got a statement from Qatar, and let me just read this to you, Christiane. The missiles were fired at the Al-Udeid air
base by the IRGC. Qatar considered that a flagrant violation of the State of Qatar's sovereignty and airspace. The one you're seeing on your screen
at the moment is actually the defense ministry statement. That's a second statement. The one I'm reading to you is from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
This is a flagrant violation of the state of Qatar's sovereignty and airspace as well as of international law. We affirm the State of Qatar
reserves the right to respond directly in a manner proportional to the nature and scale of this blatant aggression and in accordance with
international law. We also affirm that the continuation of such escalating military actions will undermine security and stability in the region and
drag it into situations that will have disastrous repercussions.
We know that there were 10 missiles fired at the Al-Udeid Air Base, and let's remind ourselves that is the biggest air base in the region. It is a
base of U.S. assets. It is actually hosted by Qatar. This is not a U.S. base per se. It is a base hosted by Qatar. It has CENTCOM there as well,
Central Command. So, this is a very symbolic site.
And the reason I say that is the following. Firstly, it was described to me by somebody briefed on the matter as symbolic to the degree that this base
had been evacuated, the Iranians have said they fired exactly the same amount of missiles at it as were fired at its nuclear sites in Iran. So,
this was proportional.
There is some reporting during the rounds tonight that this, in fact, was coordinated. I have been told on good authority from sources in Qatar that
that is absolutely not the case. Why might that have been speculated? Well, I think many people might be surprised that in this Gulf region, Qatar and
Iran share extremely good relations. In fact, of course you will know well that they share a gas field, the South Park gas field, their relations are
extremely good.
Again, I was reminded that on Saturday the Qatar PM was in Istanbul with the Iranian prime minister trying extremely hard to mediate getting these
U.S. Iran talks back on track. But then, of course, overnight Sunday the U.S. hit these Iranian nuclear sites. So, a big symbolic strike on this
site, no casualties. The defense systems, the air defense systems took these missiles out, but a huge escalation on the part of the Iranians. They
hope that this will be seen, I think, as a one and done. That was --
AMANPOUR: OK. Becky.
ANDERSON: -- their response and things can move on.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Yes. It's really going to be important to watch this. So, thank you very much indeed. To see whether, in fact, it does escalate, as
you indicated Qatar saying that it might. But anyway, Becky, thank you very much indeed. Because we have to go now to Israel. Electronic billboards and
landmarks are lit up with the U.S. flag and thanks to Donald Trump for finally letting the U.S. step into their long planned war on Iran. Here's
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the
world's most dangerous weapons. His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of
prosperity and peace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:50:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, Israel's defense minister says, their air force struck at the heart of Tehran, the Iranian capital, with, quote, " unprecedented
force today." They say they struck at the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters and the gates of the notorious Evin Prison. It's unclear what
happened to the inmates inside, many of whom are innocent political prisoners. Israel says it is also striking Fordow, this time access route
to the site.
So, what is their ultimate goal? And now, that Trump is posting about regime change, has Netanyahu got Trump to buy into that now? Again, Vice
President Vance said they are not at war with Iran, only its nuclear program.
Amos Yadlin was Israel's chief of military intelligence and directly involved in the destruction of Iraq and Syria nuclear reactors back in '80s
eighties and the early 2000s. And he's joining me now from Tel Aviv. Amos Yadlin, welcome back to our program.
So, where to begin? You've all called this a spectacular success. Donald Trump has said that, your prime minister has said that. You believe, I
think, and you tell me, what do you think, according to your own intelligence, has actually been done to Fordow? What is the impact of the
U.S. bombing over the weekend?
AMOS YADLIN, FORMER HEAD OF ISRAELI DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE: We don't know yet. You need to have intelligence coming from many sources, satellite
reconnaissance, as well as seeing and human, and it'll be mixed and fused. And, you know, BDA, in a way, is more art than science.
If I can do my initial assessment, it was destroyed but not to the level that the U.S. air force and the Israelis hoped. It is not total
destruction, but it's enough destruction if you add as the marginal installation on the nuclear many sites of Iran that were attacked in the
last 10 days.
So, it is not the in generical and the kinetic effect, it's what will be the political and the diplomatic effect of such an attack.
AMANPOUR: All right. So, let me ask you that then.
YADLIN: It is very important -- '
AMANPOUR: Amos, let me ask you that, because there's a lot of sound and noise in the atmosphere about the -- what happens next, the day after.
What's your plan? Is it regime change? I mean, you have gone, you, the Israeli military have gone from nuclear targets, from military targets to
full on regime targets and not just international, you know, not just the foreign regime, you know, forces, but those who are responsible for control
and dissent domestically. What are you trying to do?
YADLIN: The stated goals of the Israeli government and the Israeli military is to destroy as much as possible the nuclear program, the ballistic
missiles, arrays, that firing missiles into Israel and to create the condition for a better deal with Iran. And this war will be tested what
will happen in the day after to the Iranian nuclear program. This is the goal.
The regime change was never the goal. Never. Because I don't know, and I'm expert to air power. How will you change your regime with air power? And
Israel is employing only air power in Iran. For regime change, you need boots on the ground, neither the U.S. nor Israel want to put boots on the
ground.
It is can come only from internal, domestic, 80 percent of the Iranian people who hate the regime and if they were fair and free election, they
will vote out the Islamist, the ayatollahs, the radical terrorist regime of Ayatollah Khamenei.
AMANPOUR: OK. I want to ask you this, you said the stated goal, but the increasingly stated goal by both your prime minister and other ministers
and now by the president of the United States is regime change. So, specifically, I want to ask you, because, you know, you have social media
accounts and the government is busy, you know, talking it all up in public and on social media.
So, Israel says that it attacked the gates, the entry, to the Evin Prison in Northern Tehran. A place I know very, very well indeed. And now, it's
posted in Persian, a video of the prison attack with the caption symbol of repression.
[13:55:00]
And also going after the Basij. You know what the Basijs are? They're the domestic shock troops are that keep control and violently put down
uprisings. And so, I want to ask you, was that a good idea to hit the prison? Because we've heard from our friends who have inmates and relatives
inside that they actually -- the blast went inside and has caused damage and to at least one block and major damage to another block. So, apparently
there's been a big internal debate in Israel about the wisdom of doing this.
What is the point of hitting a prison? Can you tell me? With innocent political prisoners inside, people who you should be trying to save, no?
YADLIN: Christiane, you are taking me to a place that I don't have the details about. What I saw is only attack of the gate. So, so to free them
from this awful prison. So, don't take me to these details because I cannot help you.
On the other side, I will tell you that two families of targets were excluded from the Israeli attack, the oil industry, the gas, the energy,
because Israel didn't want to create a global crisis. And second is the top civilian leadership. Israel targeted the IRGC commanders, the head of the
Iranian army, but not the civilian leadership. And what Israel is signaling that it can reach the civilian leadership and those Basij and other IRGC
are in the middle of terror.
Since Iran is targeting Tel Aviv and hospitals in Be'er Sheva and they are by now killed only civilians, Israel is targeting only military and nuclear
targets. And now, it is coming to the regime. If it'll help to change the regime from the inside, that will be wonderful. This will be the best
result of this war. But nobody is trying to make the regime change because it cannot be done, as I already said, by air power.
AMANPOUR: So, I wonder why President Trump is now musing in public posts about regime change, even after his own advisers said, we're not at war
with the Iranian people or with Iran, but only with the nuclear program. And with respect. I mean, we have plenty of reporting that plenty of
civilians have been killed and injured.
So, I want to know what you think about unintended consequences to all of this, but most particularly, what do you think would be a viable or the
most obvious group or whatever to take over if this regime, as you say should topple? I mean, who do you identify as being able to actually do
that and run the place without it becoming a failed state or a disintegrated state? Do you have any ideas?
YADLIN: I don't think that I understood your question.
AMANPOUR: OK.
YADLIN: But if you ask about innocent people that are killed in a war, this is a war. What you are judged by who you aim it. If you aim at a legitimate
military target that contribute to achieve the objectives of the war, this is a legitimate target and there will be collateral damage, there will be
collateral damage, but it should be proportional to the goals of the campaign.
And if you ask me what is the out the outcome of this campaign, I will be very happy if the Iranian nuclear program will be rolled back as much as
possible, if Israel will destroy the ballistic missiles and the launchers of the ballistic missiles that are flying to my country every night and
killings only civilians. And if we will be able to bring this awful regime into the negotiation table with less leverages than they have before and
the Americans, or the superpowers that will negotiate with them will be able to bring a reliable, credible agreement that will stop all the Iranian
street to the bomb.
AMANPOUR: And finally --
YADLIN: And this will be done on the basis of the golden standard. GOLDEN standard is allowing a country that want to have a nuclear power, reactors
to get the enriched uranium for the reactors, from the outside, from Interactional Consortium. And when it is used and produce plutonium that
can also be a source of atomic bomb, it is shipped out.
AMANPOUR: OK.
[14:00:00]
END
