Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT); Interview with Former Saudi Intelligence Chief and Former Saudi Arabia Ambassador to the U.S. Turki al-Faisal; Interview with Former MI6 Chief and Former U.K. Ambassador to the U.N. John Sawers. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 04, 2026 - 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. Conflicting rationales,
moving goalposts, and still no day after plan as the latest U.S.-Israel war on Iran expands. I ask Senate Democrat Chris Murphy has the U.S. got into
something it doesn't know how to get out of?
Then Saudi Arabia, one of America's key golf partners, risk being drawn into the fray. Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi former intelligence chief
joins me. And the former British Intelligence Chief Sir John Sawers. Also, as fractures appear between Washington and close allies.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Israel is conducting yet another wave of strikes across Iran and Lebanon. While the U.S. says its heaviest attacks are still to come. He his defense
secretary, Pete Hegseth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: I stand before you today with one unmistakable message about operation Epic Fury. America is winning,
decisively devastatingly and without mercy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Chilling. But five days in, the Trump administration is trying to project a clear and unified message after failing quite spectacularly to
answer basic questions about the mission, including its objective justification, day after plan, and exit strategy. It's been called a war of
choice by many since there was no imminent Iranian threat according to experts and analysts. It was launched without approval from Congress and
with most Americans opposed, according to polls.
Tehran meantime is widening the scope of its retaliation, and every hour U.S. allies in the region are at greater risk of being drawn in. Earlier
NATO ally, Turkey, reported that the NATO Air defense systems shot down an Iranian missile that was headed for its airspace.
Inside Iran, civilians are paying the highest price. More than a thousand people have been killed according to a U.S.-based human rights group. That
includes 168 children killed in a strike on a girl's elementary school in the opening salvos. This video shows the lines of graves where they have
now been buried. Israel and the United States say they are investigating this incident.
The Democratic senator Chris Murphy, is on the Foreign Relations Committee, and he was amongst a group of senators, the whole chamber, briefed by
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday evening. He joined me earlier from Capitol Hill just ahead of the Senate vote on whether to authorize
this war.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Senator Murphy, welcome back to the program.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yes, thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, because there has been, I think, an attempt to have a different kind of unified messaging, a unified rationale.
Certainly, from the Pentagon, we heard Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth say, America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy. What
is your understanding of the progress of this war on Iran?
MURPHY: Well, first of all I have no idea why we entered this war because Donald Trump has one story and Marco Rubio has another story. Rubio says,
we got dragged into the war by Israel. He's effectively said that this was a defensive action because we worried there was going to be an attack on
the United States. Donald Trump says, no. In fact, we dragged Israel into this war.
They have lots of different goals. They seem to be targeting the nuclear program, the missile program. Trump seems to be talking pretty regularly
about regime change, cheerleading the Iranian people to come out into the streets. It's really unclear to me, even after having sat in the briefing
yesterday, why we entered the war and what the goals are.
It looks as if it's pretty open-ended, that we may be at war with Iran, bombing Iran for months, if not the better part of this year. This is about
as incoherent incompetence and confusing a rollout of military action overseas as I've ever seen.
AMANPOUR: Can I just stop you there and pick up on what you just said, months or the better part of the rest of this year? That's 11 months to be
precise. Israel, as we know, has done that in Gaza for the, for two years after October 7th. You think that the United States is capable of bombing a
country for a whole another year?
[13:05:00]
MURPHY: So, this is what I heard yesterday. Though Donald Trump has talked about regime change, and certainly Israel is talking about regime change,
and of course this has to be a regime change operation because they specifically targeted the ayatollah and many people surrounding him, it
doesn't actually seem like we care too much who runs the country.
Our intelligence services acknowledge that it'll be hardliners that will still be committed to provocation in the region and rebuilding a missile
program and rebuilding a nuclear program, and it doesn't appear that we are going to support the Iranian people in their efforts to overtake the regime
and start a transition to democracy. So, if that's all true, the only way that you can stop Iran from restarting its missile program, restarting its
nuclear program, restarting its drone program, is to be constantly bombing Iran.
Every time they try to start a new drone factory, you bomb that factory. That seems to be the administration's plan right now. That's a recipe for
almost endless war in the region. That's, I think, would be shocking to the American people, but I don't really know any other way to read their
strategy or their explanation of their strategy.
AMANPOUR: Senator, do you think, if you've looked at the polls right, you know what the American people are thinking. What are they thinking? You
know, often when a country goes to war, people rally around the flag, et cetera. Are they doing that? What are your polls telling you?
MURPHY: Well, I mean, people have no idea why we're at war with Iran. The president did, you know, absolutely no work at explaining to the American
people why this was essential. You know, even back in the Iraq war days, though that was never -- you know, that ended up being a very unpopular
war, the president explained it to the American people. Donald Trump hasn't told folks why we're doing this.
It's going to be increasingly unpopular. It's already supported by only maybe 30 percent of the American public. But as prices continue to go up,
oil prices, the price of groceries go up as more Americans get killed. And we were told in no uncertain terms yesterday in the briefing that more
Americans are going to die. This is going to become maybe the most unpopular military engagement in the history of the country.
And the president whose approval ratings are already around 30 percent are going to plummet into the 20s and the teens. This shouldn't be about
politics, but nobody in America wants this war. And even fewer who just back the president on whatever he does because he's their guy are going to
be along for this ride in the long run.
AMANPOUR: Senator, you mentioned the Iranian people. And, of course, we all watch what happened in late December, early January, the
demonstrations, the brutal crackdown, the killing of thousands of Iranian protesters. The president clearly, and so did Netanyahu, call on them to
rise up. That's the prime minister of Israel. And that help would be on the way. The president and Netanyahu again asked them and called on them to do
that once the war had already started on Saturday.
What did you hear from Secretary Rubio about the commitment to helping the Iranian people if indeed they do take America up on what it's urging them
to do, and that is protest and try to overthrow their regime?
MURPHY: So, it appears to me that we are not willing that the Trump administration is not willing based upon the comments that they have made
to us to support the Iranian people in their efforts to depose this regime and start a transition to a democracy. And that is unforgivable given the
fact that, as you mentioned, Donald Trump has told the Iranian people to get out into the streets.
But if they go out into the streets, they're going to be slaughtered. The Iranian military is still very powerful. We maybe have taken out their
missile capability, but we haven't taken out their ability to wage war domestically on the streets of Iran. And if we are going to encourage the
Iranian people to come out in the streets and then pull the rug out from under them, not give them the support that they need.
And by the way, an air campaign doesn't help them in, you know, peaceful protests. That would have to be American ground forces. It seems that we
are readying to leave the Iranian people out to dry, that we're going to tell them get out on the streets, and then we're going to give them no
support. Reminiscent of Hungary during the Cold War, Iraq in the 1990s, there could be a slaughter afoot because the Iranian people think that the
United States has their back. But Donald Trump, I don't think, has any intention to go that far.
AMANPOUR: That would be a terrible betrayal, Senator. The president has stood up in public over and again, urging them and promising them help is
on the way. I know that Hegseth yesterday said this is not about regime change. So, what's changed, do you think?
[13:10:00]
MURPHY: Well, I don't think anything has changed. They're just incompetent and incoherent. I mean, I think every single day Donald Trump gives a
different rationale for the war. This is just what happens when you have, you know, a senile old man surrounded by a bunch of incompetent sycophants,
making decisions as serious as war in the Middle East. One day they say, the Iranian people get out there, take over the government. The next day
they say, actually, we don't care who's in charge of Iran. If you want to go out there and try to take out this regime, Iranian people, you're on
your own.
I think the rhetoric will flip another six times between now and next Monday. That's just what you get when you have, you know, I mean, people
who just aren't up for the job when you have a talk show host running the Department of Defense.
AMANPOUR: Well, you know, you have -- that's pretty, you know, direct in their face. But to be frank, a lot of people are wondering who's thinking
what because of what you describe in the, you know, in the center of the White House and the Pentagon and the State Department.
In a press briefing yesterday, actually with Chancellor Merz, one of his key European allies, he spoke to what you also talked about. They don't
really care or know or have a plan for who might take over. At first, he was asked about Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah, who's positioned
himself as a leading opposition figure. Trump sort of brushed him aside and said it'd be better to talk to and to deal with somebody from the inside.
But then he said this. Listen to this worst-case scenario.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I guess the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person, right?
That could happen. We don't want that to happen. It would probably be the worst. You go through this and then in five years, you realize you put
somebody in who is no better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, honestly, it beggars' belief. I mean, I literally cannot believe it.
MURPHY: Yes. I mean, that's the -- that's actually the most likely scenario. I mean, the ayatollah was an evil human being, but he was an old
man who didn't have functional control of the country. His obsolescence was not coincidental to Iran's diminishing influence in the region. And so,
what have we done here? We've taken out an 80-year-old guy who really had little control over the Iranian infrastructure, who was losing influence in
the region. And we've given the IRGC the ability to put someone in charge who's much more competent and perhaps is able to, as MBS did in Saudi
Arabia, take a very diffuse leadership system and decision-making system and consolidate it.
I mean, the most likely outcome is what Trump just told reporters in that press conference, that this is going to end up with the Iranians being even
more capable and even more lethal. And again, the only way to stop that from happening is to run a 24/7, 365-day-a-year, trillion-dollar bombing
campaign over the skies of Iran. That is something we can't afford as a country and something the American people don't want.
AMANPOUR: It's really hard to listen to this because it goes against all the things that the administration told us, that the Israelis told us. I
want to just go back to what you said at the beginning. I think you said that, you know -- and Trump and Rubio had different things to say about
who's wagging the dog, so to speak.
Is this Trump being rolled or rumbled by Netanyahu, or is it Trump going willingly along with Netanyahu? Is this in the best Israeli interest or the
best American interest, what's happening right now? Because we're hearing that some of the casus belli, as delineated by the administration, is based
not on fact. They do not have the Iranians' intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach the U.S. They hadn't been deemed to have restarted in a
significant way their nuclear program after the destruction, which Trump said had obliterated it in the summer. So, they do have these regional
ballistic missiles. What can you tell us about in whose interest this is?
MURPHY: Well, it's certainly not in American interests, especially if at the end of this process somebody emerges in Iran that's even worse than the
ayatollah. It's not in our interest that we are evacuating U.S. citizens right now from 14 different countries without a plan.
It's not in our interest that ultimately extremism is going to grow because of our decision to take out the holy leader of the Shia people in the
middle of the month of Ramadan. It's not in our interest for prices to go up in the United States at the pumps at the grocery store because of the
holy leader of the Shia people in the middle of the month of Ramadan. It's not in our interest for prices to go up in the United States at the pumps
at the grocery store because of this war.
[13:15:00]
No, there's nothing about this war that's in our interest. I frankly don't think it's in the interest in the long run of Israel either. You know, they
should be working on mid-wifing a Palestinian State into existence. That is the only way that Israel lives in peace with the Palestinian people.
Constant war, constant provocation, leading to tens of thousands of civilians dying in Gaza, the West Bank, and in Iran ultimately just stirs
up a hornet's nest which is going to be a perpetual problem for Israel. This is in neither of these countries' interests, ours or Israel's.
I don't know who led who into war here. There are definitely people around Donald Trump who want this war. Maybe Netanyahu pushed him into it. Maybe
Trump was trying to distract from rising prices and the fact that he's probably at the middle of the biggest child sex scandal in the history of
the country. I can't see inside that room. I just know that this is a really bad outcome whoever pushed whoever else into it for the United
States and Israel.
AMANPOUR: So, that latter reference was to the Epstein files and the ongoing investigations. But let me ask you because you are a member, a
senior member of Senate. The Congress has a responsibility and the tools to actually authorize war or not. Why haven't you done it? I know there's
going to be some kind of vote on the War Powers Act or whatever form that takes. What is the best outcome that you think that you can do to actually
exert your own responsibilities?
MURPHY: Well, Congress has to have a debate on an authorization of war. I don't actually think that that would pass. I don't think Trump would be
able to get enough Republicans to proactively vote to go into an open-ended war with Iran because the American people on the right and the left would
rise up against it.
And it is the responsibility of the leaders of the Senate and the House, and they are Republicans, to bring that debate before the Senate. If they
don't, our leverage as Democrats in the Senate is to just say simply this. We're not going to vote to proceed to any other legislation. We're not
going to let any other bill come before the Senate until we have a debate on an authorization of military force that would potentially end this war
because it would fail.
A war powers resolution, which is what Senator Kaine has brought before the Senate, is insufficient. I will vote for it. I've supported Senator Kaine.
But the presumption cannot be on the opponents of war to bring a war powers resolution that says the president has to stop. No, the presumption is on
the proponents of war to not start a war unless they have a proactive authorization from Congress. So, we shouldn't proceed with business as
usual in the Senate until we have a debate on an authorization.
AMANPOUR: And finally, go back to one of the words you used to describe the administration. One is incompetent. My own question is that there
appears to be a lot of surprise within the administration about Iran's response. Even though Iran telegraphed up and down for weeks that American
interests in the region would be targeted. And so, indeed, they have been. Allies of the United States have been targeted.
But also, the panic that I read as panic of the American authorities telling their American citizens to leave the region, but, oh, we won't help
you, we can't help you, you have to do it on your own, was to me a very fundamental signifier. And then we see this State Department hotline as of
yesterday. I think it's been changed now.
But as of just a few hours or a day ago, this is what people calling the State Department hotline would have heard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you are calling about the crisis in the Middle East, please press one, if not, press two. Please do not rely on the U.S.
government for assisted departure or evacuation at this time. There are currently no United States evacuation points. Please continue to check the
embassy's website for updated information in the event of ongoing military action.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Oh, what does that say to you?
MURPHY: I mean, again, I know we're used to covering administrations that make mistakes, that are basically competent. I mean, the underlying story
here is a White House and a Department of Defense that have no idea what they're doing on an hour-to-hour basis. You have children, you have people
who just were like MAGA trolls online, holding significant positions in the American national security infrastructure.
And so, of course, the day that the Iranian bombs and missiles start falling on American targets in the Middle East, the hotline says, do not
call us. We have no plans to help you because you've got 22-year-olds who are in charge of this business.
[13:20:00]
I know that's hard to hear for Americans, but that's the reality, and apparently, they are now scurrying to try to get some Americans out, but
they're going to have a hard time, because they frankly should have gotten Americans out before the bombing started.
Everybody knew what was about to happen, it wasn't like this was a big secret, the carrier groups were poised to strike. They could have spent
that week ahead of the strikes getting Americans out of harm's way. And now, you may have American civilians, not just American soldiers, dying
because of the gross incompetence of this administration. That should make people in this country furious.
AMANPOUR: Senator Murphy, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
MURPHY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, I said earlier that a new messaging plan has been ordered by the administration, and now the White House Press Secretary Karoline
Leavitt is speaking, so let's listen in for a bit.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: -- developing nuclear bombs. After years of endless appeasement and empty statements from
politicians on both sides of the political aisle in this town, President Trump is finally the man of action. President Trump is holding these
monsters accountable and permanently extinguishing their nuclear ambitions. Future generations of Americans will look to this moment as the moment
where the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran ended.
At the beginning of Operation Epic Fury, launched last weekend, President Trump laid out clear objectives to the American people on what the U.S.
military seeks to accomplish through these major combat operations. Number one, destroy the regime's deadly ballistic missiles and completely raze
their missile industry to the ground. Number two, annihilate the Iranian regime's navy. And so, far, we have destroyed more than 20 Iranian ships,
including their top submarine last night, using a torpedo for the first time since World War II. There is not a single Iranian ship underway in the
Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, or the Gulf of Oman.
Number three, Operation Epic Fury will ensure the regime's terrorist proxies in the region can no longer destabilize the region or the free
world and attack our armed forces. And thus far, Iran's proxies are hardly putting up a fight. Number four, this mission will guarantee that Iran can
never obtain a nuclear weapon.
It's safe to say that thus far, Operation Epic Fury has been a resounding success. American forces have struck more than 2,000 targets, destroying
hundreds and hundreds of ballistic missiles, launchers, and drones. As the Department of War said this morning, we expect to have complete and total
dominance over Iranian airspace in the coming hours, clearing the skies for our brave warriors to continue achieving these noble and long sought-after
objectives.
There's been a lot of misreporting and intellectual dishonesty from the American media on why President Trump decided to launch this operation. So,
let me remind you, Operation Midnight Hammer, which took place last June, obliterated Iran's three major nuclear sites. Yet the terrorist Iranian
regime has remained fully committed to rebuilding its nuclear program.
How do we know this? Because Iran has pursued this path of war and violence despite President Trump dispatching two of his top and most trusted
negotiators to engage in exhaustive and good-faith negotiations to try and reach a deal. And the world knows this president's preference is always
peace and diplomacy first. Look no further than the eight additional global conflicts he has ended in the past year as proof.
Unfortunately, the terrorist Iranian regime refused to negotiate in good faith. They chose this path of violence and destruction, and they are
reaping the consequences of their horrible decision.
The regime did what they always have done. They lied. They delayed. They tried to string the United States of America along. They wanted to buy
themselves time to continue building ballistic missiles and other deadly weaponry that could harm our U.S. personnel and troops in the region and to
continue aggressively pursuing their unacceptable nuclear ambitions. U.S. negotiators offered to lift crippling sanctions on Iran and even provide
nuclear fuel to Iran at no cost to support a civil nuclear power program.
They additionally had the opportunity to accept U.S. support as an investor in potential projects to develop peaceful nuclear energy together under a
mutually agreed-upon framework. Yet in response, Iran would have to forfeit their enrichment capacity once and for all. But Iran rejected. They
accepted none of these generous and unprecedented offers by the United States.
AMANPOUR: The view from the White House, as we said, they're trying to come up with a consolidated message. Unfortunately, there's a bit of blame-
the-messenger involved there. But we've been monitoring very carefully the rolling rationale for this war and the lack of exit strategy. Now, you're
hearing it from the White House, how they're trying to consolidate.
[13:25:00]
One thing to be said is that according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Iranian response with its missiles has been significantly degraded.
It's significantly dropped according to the U.S. chiefs of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. So, stay with us. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: We turn now to the havoc raining down on America's allies in the Gulf. The U.S. has closed its embassies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Lebanon
and is telling Americans to leave. Now, after an outcry over a State Department -- over telling Americans not to rely on the government for
assistance, the State Department now says the U.S. is committed to helping.
Meantime, as Iran continues to target energy infrastructure, the price of oil and gas is rising. Qatar's biggest gas producer has decided to stop
production and exports are effectively halted for now. China is warning now the war is threatening global energy supplies. Overnight, Saudi Arabia
intercepted and destroyed two cruise missiles as well as nine drones. That's according to their state media.
The CIA station in Riyadh was also hit this week and the U.S. embassy was struck by two suspected Iranian drones. The kingdom has condemned Tehran's,
quote, "flagrant behavior" and says it, quote, "reserves the option to respond.
Prince Turki al-Faisal is Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief and a former ambassador to Washington and London and he's joining us now from
Riyadh. Prince Turki, welcome back to the program. We always seek your wisdom and your knowledge even though you're not a government official.
So, let me ask you what you think Saudi Arabia is going to do and why you think Iran is targeting Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
TURKI AL-FAISAL, FORMER SAUDI INTELLIGENCE CHIEF AND FORMER SAUDI ARABIA AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Thank you very much, Ms. Amanpour. It's always
good to be back with you. I watched the first section of your show and it was very informative on the American side of what is happening.
The kingdom has plainly stated its rejection of all of the Iranian activity that is taking place in the area, not only against Saudi Arabia but against
the whole Gulf states and even farther afield. As you mentioned in your former section of the event, even Turkey has at least a missile went into
its airspace. So, the dangers of expanding and widening the conflict exist at the moment and there has to be a stop to it.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the bombing campaign that the Americans and the Israelis have begun is going to put a stop to that. Whatever
information I have which I gleaned from published accounts and statements from officials is that the Iranians are pretty well stocked with missiles
and drones and have been preparing for this kind of eventuality, not only by the time of the last conflict in June but even from before that. So,
we're in for a long haul, if you like, not just on the American side but also on the Iranian side.
[13:30:00]
One thing I must make clear, Ms. Amanpour, is that here in the area we're facing two agendas. One, both of them apocalyptic. One from Israel, which
is the greater Israel agenda. This has been talked about by Netanyahu and by other Israeli officials. Israel wants to expand from the Nile River to
the Euphrates.
And the other one, of course, is the Iranian agenda, which is the return of the absent imam who disappeared something like seven or eight centuries
ago, and he will come back and make the world a peaceful place and prepare for the coming of Christ.
The third agenda that is affecting us and which has impact in the United States and in other places is the Christian Zionist agenda, which wants to
see a return of the Messiah and the existence of Israel in their theology and their terminology is necessary for that to happen. So, we are, if you
like, in the middle of these three agendas that are operating to expand their vision onto the rest of us. And the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, of
course, works with its Gulf allies to try to put a stop to all this bloodshed and carnage that is taking place.
AMANPOUR: I just want to pick up on what you said about the apocalyptic visions because you've mentioned, you know, from the Israeli perspective,
from the Iranian perspective and from the American perspective. And in fact, this week, there have been reports and complaints by many American
officers and soldiers through their chain of command about being told that U.S. troops war on Iran is part of Armageddon.
So, that's what they have been told in some of their units and in some of their bases by their commanding officers. So, that goes to what you just
said. But I want to ask you this. The Washington Post has reported that your crown prince, MBS, was privately urging Trump to actually attack Iran.
Now, Saudi Arabia denies this. But what do you think? There's no love lost between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
It's clear that everybody, including Gulf states, including the U.S. and Israel, thought that Iran had been pretty fatally wounded and crippled by
all the activity against it over the last year. Do you think it would have been a message from MBS to go ahead and do this?
AL-FAISAL: I doubt it very much. You know, the kingdom's leadership has consistently always held to their public positions in private sessions with
other officials, including with Mr. Trump. And when the crown prince was in Washington, I'm sure they discussed all these issues, and he laid things
bare on that issue. At that time, of course, the conflict in Iran had not yet started, but definitely it must have arisen in the discussions.
And, you know, American media seems to contradict itself. I think a couple of weeks ago, there were reports that Saudi Arabia was aligning itself with
Iran against Israel. And now, we see they're saying that Saudi Arabia is urging America to bomb Iran. So, I think there is disinformation being
spread, unfortunately, I think, by Israeli spokespeople or officials in order to show that it is not just Israel that has been urging America to
take action against Iran.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about what appears to be some surprise in the region, maybe in Saudi Arabia, in Qatar, some anger about the response by
Iran. This is what President Trump said yesterday. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Amazingly, they're hitting countries that were, you know, let's call them neutral, right? They lived together for a long time. I think they
were surprised. I was surprised. And now, those countries are all fighting against them and fighting strongly against them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: From an intelligence point of view, I mean, Iran did basically say that it was going to hit out at these places that host, you know,
American bases and hold them responsible as well. Are you surprised at the extent of Iran's retaliation?
[13:35:00]
AL-FAISAL: Well, I am surprised at the president's surprise. Respectfully, I would recall that the crown prince and other Gulf leaders have been
urging America not to undertake military action against Iran, because all of us believe that that action will not remain confined to Iran, that Iran
will retaliate against American presence in the area, which is present in all of the Gulf states and as far away as Turkey, apparently. So, if he was
surprised, I don't think Saudi or other Gulf leaders were surprised. They've been warning the Americans not to undertake military action and
suffer the consequences.
AMANPOUR: You know, for a long time, Saudi leaders and other Arab leaders in the Gulf states have told their people that you're hosting American
bases because it's in your interest, because it will protect you as well. Now, you are being attacked, as Iran signaled you would be, and I don't see
much defense coming to you all. Yes, defense to Israel, but do you feel you are being defended? Is hosting American bases a long-term viable situation
anymore, do you think? Can you all trust America and its defensive posture for you?
AL-FAISAL: Well, that's why I can talk about what I see is happening in Saudi Arabia. That's why Saudi Arabia has been trying to buttress and
expand its military capabilities in order to be able to defend itself and developing a military industry in the kingdom so that we don't have to go
to the outside world like America or Europe to purchase weapons and so on. But we also work with our Gulf state partners in order to try to form some
kind of common command, and that's been a long time coming, and I'm sure the present situation will hasten the formation of some kind of pan-Gulf
defense command to protect the Gulf states.
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia, you know, in the last Trump administration back in 2019, if you remember, we were bombed by Iranian missiles at that
time, and Mr. Trump at the time did not offer any support at that time. So, it is no surprise for the kingdom that he is not coming to our help, if you
like, as far as I can see. I don't know what is happening on official circles, but definitely the whole issue of more bloodshed and more
destruction is anathema to the kingdom.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you --
AL-FAISAL: The kingdom is on a course of social and industrial and commercial development. We want to continue on that route instead of having
military conflicts in the area.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you because, let's face it, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Sunni faith, called the guardian of the two holy mosques.
Iran is pretty much the guardian of the Shia faith. There is a clash between you two. Do you believe that the assassination of the so-called
supreme leader can collapse the regime, collapse the raison d'etre? Do you believe that it can eventually lead to the uprising of people in Iran
because Trump has moved back from regime change?
AL-FAISAL: Well, I would put it another way. You know, the kingdom has Shia citizens as well as Sunni citizens. Iran itself has Sunni citizens as
well as Shia citizens. So, I would not put it so starkly as a difference between Sunni and Shia. But definitely, I don't think that the system in
Iran will collapse anytime soon.
As I said, the Iranian leadership has been preparing for an eventuality like this because of what they have continued to hear from Mr. Netanyahu in
the past 40 years. He has been calling for the destruction of Iran, and so the Iranians obviously took note of that and have been preparing themselves
for such an eventuality. And as we see in the news already, they're in the process of electing a new so-called leader to succeed Khamenei. They've
already set up an interim leadership of three personalities from the leadership.
[13:40:00]
So, the system, I think, the only way that the system will go, I think, it will be through the Iranian people. You know, it is they, in the end, who
will decide what is going to happen in their country.
And, you know, Mr. Murphy mentioned that, you know, President Trump promised support for the uprising that took place, et cetera, and then he
backed away. And then what I found very startling, of course, is that Mr. Murphy was saying that maybe they should put troops on the ground to help
the uprising against the ayatollahs. So, even there, yanni, there is confusion on the American side as to what should be done.
AMANPOUR: Yes, he didn't say put them, he said that's the only way it could because it's never happened from the air. But I want to ask you a
final and quick question. People are saying that Israel stands to be the biggest winner out of all of this. Do you think that's the case? And do you
think that it makes normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia any closer?
AL-FAISAL: Well, forget normalization, let alone what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank. You know, this is Netanyahu's war. You talked about
the dog and the tail, who's wagging who. It is definitely Mr. Netanyahu who, as you mentioned, seven trips to America, and obviously he somehow
convinced the president to support his views.
And so, Netanyahu has been trying to do this in order to get away from the murky and terrible conduct that he led Israel into, not just in Gaza, but
in the West Bank and internally. He wants to change the constitution of Israel to allow him to undertake whatever he wants to do without check. So,
that is why he has been pushing for this war, is to drive people's attention away from what is happening on the ground in Palestine.
And as I said, there is that agenda of a greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates. So, you can imagine what that entails.
AMANPOUR: All right. Always really important to have your perspective. Prince Turki al-Faisal, thank you very much for joining us from Riyadh in
Saudi Arabia. And we'll be back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Rifts are also opening up between Washington and its European allies, many of whom oppose the United States continuing offensive
operations in Iran. Sir John Sawers was foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He then served as U.K. ambassador to the United
Nations and as head of the intelligence agency MI6. I asked him about the implications of Trump's fraying relationship with Europe and the apparent
lack of planning beyond military strikes.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Sir John Sawers, welcome back to the program at this really critical time.
JOHN SAWERS, FORMER MI6 CHIEF AND FORMER U.K. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you first from the British perspective, Trump has now openly criticized in front of another European leader, Chancellor Merz,
Britain. Saying that we're not dealing with Winston Churchill. He's very angry that Prime Minister Starmer didn't allow U.K. bases to be used in
those first strikes by the Americans. Can I just play what Trump said?
[13:45:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There would have been much more convenient landing there as opposed to flying many extra hours. So, we are very surprised. This is not Winston
Churchill that we're dealing with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, you know, dagger to the heart, evoking the great wartime leader. Obviously then Prime Minister Starmer did change his position. So,
A, why did he change the position? And do you think it's legitimate to allow bases to be used? And B, can Britain recover? Can this Prime Minister
recover from that kind of public attack?
SAWERS: Well, frankly, President Trump's not dealing with Winston Churchill and Keir Starmer's not dealing with Franklin Roosevelt. You know,
you have two very different characters in the leadership positions.
I think Keir Starmer took a careful look at the plans as to what the extent that he and the British officials understood them and came to the
conclusion that under British law, there was no legal basis for deploying our forces or for using our assets in support of this. He's taken a
slightly complicated decision that we would not support offensive action, attack on Iran. But as soon as Iran started attacking our friends and
allies in the Gulf, the Omanis, the Emiratis, the Qataris and others, then we had defense obligations to those countries. And of course, Iran also
attacked the British base in Cyprus.
So, in purely defensive terms, he changed his approach in terms of allowing U.S. forces and indeed U.K. forces to operate in a defensive fashion.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, do you think that stands and it's a solid position? And again, can this prime minister who's done his utmost and his best bent over
backwards to accommodate the very mercurial President Donald Trump and has sort of kind of done pretty well, do you think that this is a rupture now
or will they get over it? What do you think?
SAWERS: I think they'll get over it. I've heard, usually in private, sharp differences of views in the past between presidents and prime ministers. I
don't think this is a major issue. And frankly, as the Americans have demonstrated, they didn't actually need access to U.S. -- U.K. bases. It
was just a convenience for them.
Starmer faces political challenges within his own party. He also is a firm believer in international law. You can question whether that's a sensible
thing to elevate international law to such a high status, but that is nonetheless his position, his party's position. And look at the fallout as
it affected Prime Minister Blair after the 2003 Iraq war. And that's in everybody's mind.
AMANPOUR: And that was actually going to be -- you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. Can I ask you about what's been described as
the rolling rationales for this war and the rolling inconsistencies from all members of the administration, the senior members from the president on
down to what might be the exit strategy or any strategy?
SAWERS: Well, the first thing to say, Christiane, is this is an unnecessary war. It was not required because it was not as if it was to
preempt an imminent threat against the United States or indeed against Israel. The rationale, to the extent that there is one, is that it secures
Israel for decades to come. That's what the Israelis think. And they would like to see the end of this Islamic Republic in Iran. And they think they
will be much safer as a result. And they might be right. But this will come at a cost.
The very best outcome you can expect from the current conflict is that a successor leadership comes in and behaves differently from its
predecessors. Now, that is what some in America are calling the Venezuela option. Not that I think it would be easy to find a Delcy Rodriguez in
Iran. Iran is a deeply ideological country or regime.
I think just as dangerous is the possibility that the regime might corrode or collapse and lose control of parts of the country. And then you could
have a situation like the one we faced in Syria for the last year or so, where the country fragments into several different parts and local
administrations crop up, often on an ethnic basis. There have been reports today of some activity in the Kurdish areas. We don't know exactly what it
is yet. The Israelis, I think, struck some Iranian positions in Iranian Kurdistan in order perhaps to help provoke an insurgency, some unrest in
the Kurdish area.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, CNN has been reporting that the CIA may be working to arm the Kurdish groups with the aim of fomenting such an uprising. Put
additional internal pressure, as you've just indicated, on the Iranian regime. Create a buffer zone, all those kinds of things. From an
intelligence perspective, from a foreign policy perspective, from a geostrategic perspective, is it in anybody's interest?
[13:50:00]
SAWERS: Well, it's a dangerous road to go down. You say, whose interest might it be in? Well, I think the Kurds themselves in Iran would probably
feel more free, if they were not ordered about and told what language they can speak, what flags they can fly by Tehran. There's a parallel here with
the Kurds in Iraq after the 1991 war, when the Iraqis did have an area which was a sort of safe haven, which they helped keep safe.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's only after the president then, George H.W. Bush, I was there, told them to rise up and the Shiites, then they got slaughtered
because the Americans didn't come and help them. Then they had to spend 20 years giving them a no-fly zone, which was great. But do you think Bush --
sorry, Trump is prepared to give the Kurds of Iran a 20-year no-fly zone?
SAWERS: No, I don't think he is. And I think it's been -- it was as unwise of Trump to call on the Iranian people to rise up as it was unwise of
George H.W. Bush to call on the Iraqi people to rise up in 1991. So, just getting back to your point about fragmentation, if the country dissolves
into component parts, it'll be basically a failed state, an ungoverned state. And we've known from the last sort of 40 years what happens in
failed states. It becomes a center for terrorism, for smuggling, for gun running, for drugs, for criminality of all sorts. And it does pose a threat
to other countries.
I think it's in America's interest, and it's certainly in the interest of Europe, that this deeply unpleasant regime in Tehran should nonetheless be
replaced by a regime which still has authority over the country, that you can hold it to account. Yes, we want to change Iran's behavior, but if you
just dismantle the regime completely, you could end up with the sort of chaos that we've had to deal with in Afghanistan next door to Iran, or
indeed in Lebanon and Libya, and more recently in Syria.
Now, I think there's a difference here between American interests and Israeli interests. Americans do need to be able to deal with a country the
size of Iran one way or another. I think the Israelis are more willing to take a risk here. They've lived next to a failed state in Lebanon. Last
year, they had close to a fragmented state in Syria, and they've contributed to that fragmentation.
I think the Israelis would be quite happy to see a collapse of the system in Iran and let other people deal with it, but I can assure you that our
friends in the Gulf, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, the Turks, the Pakistanis, for the reasons you give, are going to be appalled by that, and
the other thing that happens when a failed state emerges is that authority collapses and the people flee.
Now, there are 90 million people in Iran. How many of those are going to flee to Turkey and try and make their way to Europe? How many million
Iranian refugees is the United States prepared to accept as a consequence of this war? Those are unanswered questions because people are not looking
down that road.
Now, it's not clear that this is going to happen, but there's a risk of this happening, and the very best you can expect is a sort of Venezuela-
type outcome, but there are plenty of other more dangerous outcomes coming from this.
AMANPOUR: But I want to ask you because the latest is that NATO is now potentially implicated or drawn in. There was a missile that was fired
towards Turkey, a NATO member, and NATO defense forces, you know, anti- missile, brought it down before it could enter Turkish space. I mean, some debris did fall on Turkish territory. Are you worried about that? Are you
worried about ever-expanding, you know, circles of this conflict?
SAWERS: I think this conflict has already expanded beyond what most people expected. I think the scale of the Iranian response has been greater than
many anticipated. Perhaps wrongly, they should have anticipated --
AMANPOUR: Yes. I was going to ask you because they said it loud and clear.
SAWERS: Well, certainly, they said it loud and clear, and they warned the countries up and down the Gulf that if you get involved in this, we're
going to hit you. And you can see the rationale from the Iranian point of view. They want to build up as much pressure as they can through America's
friends in the Gulf, through energy markets and so on, in order to get Trump to call an end to this assault on their country and on their regime.
Now, I don't have any sympathy with the Iranian regime whatsoever. I think it's a vile and vicious regime. But I just think that the experience of the
last 25 years, whether it's on our side in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, or whether it's on other countries' side like Russia's experience in
Ukraine, is once you start a conflict like this, you may think it's only going to last four or five days or four or five weeks, but it has a habit
of the reverberation spreading much more widely. And there's a real risk in this case of that happening.
I think in some ways, United States, in the confusion between various members of the administration, has rode back on its objectives.
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: Well, they've coalesced around a different objective. This is not the objective that we were told in the beginning.
SAWERS: Yes. The loose talk about regime change is gone, and they're now talking about --
AMANPOUR: You say loose talk. It was an actual war aim. President Trump said it many times. Netanyahu said it many times. They said it. That was a
war aim.
SAWERS: It was -- I say loose talk because it was loosely said with no willingness to follow it up. The only way you can achieve regime change in
Iran is by putting ground troops in. And I sincerely hope the United States doesn't make -- doesn't follow its initial mistake of launching this war
with a second mistake of putting ground troops in.
AMANPOUR: So, you think it's a mistake. If you think it's a mistake, which many do, many agree with you, certainly a war of choice, certainly one that
means -- you know, Trump said, oh, they were going to hit us first. No evidence of that. Oh, they have reconstituted their nuclear program. No
evidence of that. Oh, they have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach us. They don't. So, lots of flimsiness, despite the
horrendousness of the regime against its own people.
So, how do you think, and Israel has just said, whoever Iran chooses as a successor to Khamenei will pretty much assassinate them, or we will. How
does this end?
SAWERS: So, Mr. Hegseth has set out, in his own emotional way, a commitment about missiles and nuclear. And now, that gives the military
targets they can hit and targets they can demonstrate have been destroyed. I think that will end up being the goal of the U.S. administration. And as
the pressure on the economy, on global markets ramps up, pressure on energy supplies, I think the president will feel that there's a time to declare, a
time to finish this conflict.
We'll wake up one morning, like we did last Saturday, when we discover suddenly this has started, we'll wake up one morning and find it's suddenly
been finished. And I think that would be a sensible thing to do. My --
AMANPOUR: And yet, it leaves the Iranian people, the majority of which -- of whom have wanted to see an end to this regime and thought that's what
they were getting, and have been in the streets to an extent celebrating certainly the death of Khamenei and the rest. What do you think happens to
them?
SAWERS: Well, it's -- we don't know exactly the mood of the Iranian people, except that it is very angry against their regime. The richness of
the Iranian culture, strength of the Iranian economy has just been thrown away over the last 40 years. And I think there's a deep desire to see an
end to the regime. But the idea that ordinary people, unarmed on the streets, without leaders, without a militia, can take over is pie in the
sky. It's fantasy. So, I don't think that's a realistic goal. I'm glad that the Pentagon have managed to wind back the goals so that it's focused on
military.
AMANPOUR: They can be crushed -- they can wind back whatever they want. They have encouraged people to take their fate in their hand, saying, we
are giving you the conditions. You've just said it's impossible, you know, an unarmed people against a highly armed force.
SAWERS: Exactly. The regime --
AMANPOUR: So, what happens to them? Do you think the regime goes after them again?
SAWERS: Well, it depends how far they stick their heads above the parapet. I mean, the regime has already warned them that anybody who protests will
be considered an agent of Israel and the United States. You know, that's a pretty chilling warning to people about what will happen. And the terrible
massacres of Iranian demonstrators after the last protests at the turn of the year, I think will -- you know, that's something which sunk deep into
the minds of the Iranian people.
They know that they've got a terrible regime and that there isn't a means of overthrowing it, not a simple means. If the regime was to collapse,
maybe there's a possibility of creating something new in its place. But as I understand it, the regime has up to a million people in their security
forces, in the IRGC, in the besieged militia and so on, who can -- who seem to be willing to use force against the Iranian people. It's a rough
ballpark figure, but it's about -- I have confidence it's about right, that that is the right order of magnitude.
And, you know, the tens of thousands of people, it seems, were killed just earlier this year. So, I think it's irresponsible to urge people to rise up
when you're not offering them any support, any protection at all.
AMANPOUR: Sir John Sawers, thank you very much indeed.
SAWERS: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, precious cultural heritage under fire, as well as the civilians caught up in this war. The Golestan Palace in downtown Tehran
was damaged in the aftermath of a U.S.-Israeli strike. That's according to Iranian state media. The magnificent mirrored halls are a symbol of Iranian
culture dating back hundreds of years, and it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It was also where the last Shah was crowned in 1967, his seven-year-
old son and heir Reza Pahlavi, sitting by his side.
Israel says an Iranian strike on the town of Beit Shemesh destroyed a synagogue and killed nine people. UNESCO is sounding the alarm, reminding
all parties that sites like these are protected under international law, trying to protect them themselves by sharing the coordinates of significant
cultural locations.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us
online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
