Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Bloomberg Weekend Editor at Large and The Mishal Husain Show Host Mishal Husain; Interview with Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies Professor and Former U.S. State Department Adviser Vali Nasr; Interview with Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman; Interview with "Duty, Honor, Country & Life" Author Admiral William McRaven (Ret.). Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 29, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III, UNITED KINGDOM: Ours is an indispensable partnership. We must not disregard everything that has sustained us for the last 80 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The king comes to America. Top British journalist, Mishal Husain, joins me on the state of the special relationship.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're doing a little Middle East work right now, too, if you might know. And we're doing very well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- pressure versus pain. With the United States and Iran locked in a standoff over the Strait of Hormuz, the global economy hangs in the
balance. Which side will break first?
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADM. WILLIAM MCRAVEN (RET.), AUTHOR, "DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY & LIFE": We need to continue to be compassionate, because I think this is what sets us
apart from Russia, from China, from other countries around the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Duty, Honor, Country & Life." Retired four-star Admiral William McRaven reflects on the American spirit with Walter Isaacson.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Executive power is subject to checks and balances, the words of the British monarch to the United States Congress. It was met with rousing bipartisan
applause from a Republican-led Congress that has consistently yielded to the demands of executive in power right now.
King Charles used this rare speech to a joint meeting of Congress. His mother, Queen Elizabeth, delivered the last one in 1991 to defend the
values that bind what Winston Churchill coined as the special relationship. There were plenty of subtle but significant rebukes to Donald Trump's
beliefs and style of governance, from raising climate change to defending NATO and supporting Ukraine.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time, and the United Nations Security Council was
united in the face of terror, we answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two
world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security.
Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And today, the king and queen honor the victims of 9/11 in New York City. So, on the face of it, it does look like a masterclass in subtle
diplomacy, exactly what the royal family is famous for. And it may actually well move the dial in some way, at least for a while. Let's bring in
British journalist Mishal Husain, a veteran BBC broadcaster, and now host of her own podcast at Bloomberg, where she is editor-at-large.
MISHAL HUSAIN, EDITOR AT LARGE, BLOOMBERG WEEKEND AND HOST, THE MISHAL HUSAIN SHOW: Welcome to the program. Lovely to be with you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, as we speak, the King and Queen are going to 9/11, the memorial there. And it's important because the King raised the idea of this
shared sacrifice, the shared burden, and the first time Article 5 was ever, ever invoked to defend and protect the United States of America. Just give
me your view on his speeches, both at the state dinner and in Congress, and what he's doing now.
HUSAIN: The hours of those two speeches were, I think, the most important moment diplomatically of this visit and the real moment of opportunity.
Because it's worth just remembering for a second the difficult backdrop to this, the way that the president has spoken about the British prime
minister, the British attitude more widely to the Iran War, the British military. There's also been the continuing fallout over Jeffrey Epstein,
who was also an associate of the king's brother. So, this is the difficult backdrop.
But in these speeches, there were these repeated times where the king managed to land a point, and yet to do it in such a way that on both sides
of the House in Congress and in the president -- in the presence of the president at dinner, he did it with aplomb, he did it with mastery, he did
it with humor. And I thought it was a real exercise in this very unique kind of power, which I also felt the king lent into somehow. And we can't
prove this. I felt that he knew and relished that he had a unique moment in time of it and that he's a unique global figure.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: So, there was also the garden party, the famous garden parties at the British ambassador, and basically British royal tradition does so
well. You went before you came back from Washington to here, and you managed to talk to the king for a little bit.
HUSAIN: I did. There were about 600 of us in the garden of the beautiful British Embassy.
AMANPOUR: So, it's very personal.
HUSAIN: Well, it's much smaller than a Buckingham Palace garden party, Christiane, which I have been to. That's like many thousands of people
there. So, in comparison, it's quite intimate. But I was fortunate enough to speak to the king as he walked through the garden.
And, you know, it's interesting. I felt personally quite moved to see him there. And that was really because 36 hours before, I was one of the 2,500
people who'd been in the Washington Hilton when the White House Correspondents' Dinner was so badly disrupted. And seeing him, it just felt
like this was a moment of stability and reassurance and that life was going to go on as normal.
And when we spoke, I said to him, it's lovely to be able to welcome you here, given what the last few days have been like. And he immediately said,
oh, you were there. And you got that sense of engagement in the world around him. He spent his entire life, not only his adult life, his entire
life, watching diplomatic moments of one kind or another. And if this was ever a time to bring that to the fore, this was it. And I think he seized
it.
AMANPOUR: So, from my perspective, it seems that this was much more important a trip for the U.K., given the political muddle that's going on
right now, given, as you say, President Trump's, you know, excoriating the prime minister. It was very, very important for the U.K. and not
necessarily as important for Trump personally. But to all intents and purposes, Trump did a great job of hosting.
But how has it gone down here? Because there was a huge amount of opposition to the king even going after Trump blaming or -- you know,
calling the British cowards. And, you know --
HUSAIN: And it was already difficult enough for many people here. The fact that President Trump got a second state visit last year. So, added to that,
the prospect of the king being, if you like, sent in to a country which, although we're technically in a ceasefire at the moment, has been at war in
the Middle East. And all the other examples of the way that the president has displayed his power, I think is definitely uncomfortable.
But I think for most people, seeing the way that the king himself has done this, the tone that he struck, the way he's basically navigated his way
through this minefield. I think it really does display the fact that he's, in a way, he's not just there for the U.K. In a way, the messages that he
can give, whether it's alluding to and addressing climate change or comparing Ukraine to the fight against fascism in World War II. It feels
like these messages, these points were actually above the U.K.'s national interest.
AMANPOUR: I'm going to play a few of the key soundbites and we'll talk about them. Here's President Trump, first of all, kind of paying homage to
the British monarchy and its tradition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: American patriots today can sing "My Country, 'Tis of Thee,'" sweet land of liberty. Only because our colonial
ancestors first sang, "God Save the King."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What do you make of this version of President Trump? Respectful, constrained, reading from the script, not going off as sometimes he does
with other world leaders.
HUSAIN: Well, elsewhere, he also made points that felt dated in other ways. When he talked about how the British Empire ruled the world. And he
clearly thinks that -- you know, that's a thing to be incredibly proud of.
AMANPOUR: Well, that is where his historical thing is stuck. He really likes the '50s.
HUSAIN: But the king wouldn't go around the world saying -- talking about the glory days of the British Empire. So, you could see even that the bits
of British history and the lens on British history that the president was picking out were ones with which he was comfortable and which fitted in
some way into his own worldview.
But I thought the king and this will have been his team who will have worked on these moments and these words for weeks, if not months. They also
use history very cleverly. For example, the reference to the fact that the values of the founding fathers, the rebels were the cause, as the king
called them. How much they had inherited from their ancestry, their roots in Great Britain, as it was then the United Kingdom, as it is now.
And so, again, there were many subtle ways of making that bond. And the genius person who found out that there was a world submarine called HMS
Trump and therefore I missed that one allowed the king to produce the bell from this submarine and present it to the president at last night's state
dinner. I'd never heard of this submarine called HMS Trump, but it existed. And there was the bell that was handed over with tremendous flourish to the
president.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: That's crazy. Now, we just saw the king during that rare address to the joint session of Congress. And there, again, in his, you know, sort
of unique manner, managed to, you know, make historical references, but very pointedly. Let's take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KING CHARLES III, UNITED KINGDOM: The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme
Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, some have noted, Riley, the irony of both parties standing up and giving him standing ovations when he's actually he could it
could be interpreted as chiding those who are not exerting their constitutional right to check and balance the executive.
HUSAIN: This particular standing ovation started on the Democrat side of the House for obvious reasons. But again, it was the kind of message that
everyone could relate to on some level. If you were someone who's been on the no kings demonstrations that have happened repeatedly in the United
States, the irony was that it was a king delivering a no kings style message talking about checks and balances.
So, I think this was very clever in many ways, including the reference to climate change. Now, that's another example of something that President
Trump has very little time for.
AMANPOUR: And the -- you know, the White House posted two kings with the crown.
HUSAIN: Yes. And there was another reference to, I think, walking in majesty. So, this is definitely not the way that the royal family or the
British government would put it. But President Trump is the host and they're entitled to cast the visit in the way they want to.
But I think I feel that the king and his team do deserve some credit for walking a very difficult line. And you really get the impression that it's
not just that they're reading from a script and that he's doing what the government has asked him to, that he has brought a lot of himself and his
long personal experience to this and that he sees the opportunity and has risen above and beyond.
AMANPOUR: President Trump decided to basically -- I don't know exactly what went on behind closed doors. Nobody does because it wasn't on the
record. But afterwards, President Trump came out and essentially, you know, embrace the king's embrace of the Iran War in his mind. Anyway, here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have militarily defeated that particular opponent. And we're never going to let that opponent ever. Charles agrees with me even more
than I do. We're never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon. They know that. And they've known it right now. Very powerful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it is true that just about every country has always and is on record as not believing in Iran having a nuclear weapon. It's
basic policy of the U.K. government and everywhere else.
HUSAIN: But we will never know for our own record what was actually said behind closed doors. And the king is not someone who's ever going to issue
any kind of statement. So --
AMANPOUR: Any clarification?
HUSAIN: Any clarification or anything else. So --
AMANPOUR: But it's reasonable to think that he accepted the fact, obviously, and said it. It's one thing they can agree on.
HUSAIN: And frankly, it wasn't really what they would have gone there to discuss.
AMANPOUR: Right, exactly.
HUSAIN: Although one does imagine that therefore there was some kind of discussion on how and when this particular war comes to an end. The U.K.
has drawn the president's eye for not being part of it beyond the use of its bases for defensive reasons against its allies. But that's clearly been
the major point of contention. And the U.K. is very exposed economically to this war. And that's only going to increase the longer it goes on.
AMANPOUR: And not just the U.K., the whole world. America less, although individuals are feeling the pinch. But its economy less than Europe and
Asia and everywhere else. Just a quick question. Oh, it's a big question. This happens. OK. So, Keir Starmer faced down a challenge to his leadership
last night. So, for the moment, he is safe until who knows when. Do you think this will have calmed at all the baying for Starmer's blood, the -- I
don't know, the crisis within the government right now?
HUSAIN: I think unfortunately for the government, any glow that comes from this visit is going to be reserved for the king really alone, because I
can't see this leading to any kind of change in attitude among those who've really got Keir Starmer in their sights. I do think that diplomatically
between the U.S. and the U.K., there will be some kind of afterglow. And how long the tail of that is, we don't yet know. But it's hard to imagine
that it has an impact on Keir Starmer's domestic political fortunes.
[13:15:00]
There are important local elections coming up next week. He's been under pressure from the left and the right. So, this has been a really rocky few
months for him. And in many respects, the kind of zone the king's been in, the foreign policy zone, awkward as it's been with President Trump, is
probably still a slightly easier milieu than at home.
AMANPOUR: And just a couple of related questions. You mentioned that you'd been at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. What were you thinking in
that moment? I think you said, I'm so glad I'm English, or I live in England.
HUSAIN: Well, it was a very, very curious experience to suddenly be under a table in evening dress and heels. I mean, it shouldn't happen to anyone
anywhere, but it was so incongruous. And of course, I started to think about guns in America, especially because in the moments afterwards, I
realized that, you know, how many people in the room around me had had these kinds of experiences before, either drills from the time they were in
school, or indeed been in situations of where there was a gun violence threat.
So, I think I realized in that moment how protected I was and how fortunate we are to live in a country where that kind of threat, the possibility of
that kind of threat, is thankfully very remote.
AMANPOUR: Now, your podcast, "Mishal Husain Show," is doing gangbusters, and your -- one of your latest guests is going to be my guest after you,
Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Secretary of State. And in your podcast, you had asked her a little bit about, you know, Israel, and she said something
quite extraordinary, that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, quote, "created a genocide in Gaza." How did you respond to that moment?
HUSAIN: Well, I asked her about it in the knowledge that she had left the State Department in the summer of 2023. So, she was not there when October
the 7th happened, but she had worked, obviously, with President Biden and with Secretary of State Blinken. So, I was asking about a period that
happened after she left the U.S. government, but she knew the people involved.
And of course, her answer was very striking, particularly, and I think Ambassador Sherman won't mind me saying, particularly because she is of an
older generation. She's in her 70s, and this view from someone who is part of the Jewish community in the United States is much more associated with
those who are younger.
So, she went on to say that she was not referring to the legal definition of genocide, but that clearly Gaza had been demolished and that she thought
successive American administrations had handled the Middle East in general, and Israel in particular, badly.
AMANPOUR: Including their own, obviously.
HUSAIN: So, you could get her to expand on it perhaps.
AMANPOUR: Well, I will but --
HUSAIN: Because this came up right at the end of our conversation, but it's a big discussion point in itself.
AMANPOUR: But it also reflects the changing attitudes of Americans, basically on both sides of the aisle, to the support of Israel and to the
issue of Palestine as well.
HUSAIN: That's been one of the really interesting developments amongst Democrats and Republicans.
AMANPOUR: It really has been, yes. Mishal Husain, thank you so much.
HUSAIN: Lovely to see you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And stay with us, we'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: President Trump brought up Iran at last night's state dinner with king Charles, as we were saying. He basically said that we are doing
very well. And even after a close encounter with a gunman at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Trump posted an A.I. image of himself
wielding a gun and threatening Iran.
[13:20:00]
Because it is day 60 of his war against that country, now in a ceasefire, while mediators in Pakistan await a revised proposal from Tehran to try to
end the war. Trump had indicated that he wouldn't accept an earlier version which called for ending the war first and settling the thornier issues,
like Iran's nuclear program, later.
In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump said Iran has informed the United States it's in a state of collapse, insisting Tehran wants the Strait of
Hormuz open as they try to figure out their leadership. There is no evidence of that.
Let's get into all of this with Wendy Sherman, who is Deputy Secretary of State under President Biden, and with Vali Nasr, the Iranian-American
academic and former State Department official under President Obama. Welcome, both of you, to the program.
Let me first ask you, Vali, since you're sitting here and there's a new demand from Iran. President Trump has posted and he's done an interview
basically accusing them or saying that they are choking like pigs, that's what he said to Fox, and they're desperate, the economy is about to
collapse, and he will keep the blockade on until they come to what he wants them to do, i.e., discuss the nuclear issue.
VALI NASR, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY AND FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISER: Well,
definitely the blockade is hurting Iran, but I don't think they're at the point that they would want to surrender. I think Iran's calculation is that
there's also pressure on the global economy, which puts pressure on the United States, and that perhaps they can actually outlast. So, I think the
president's actually trying to put a narrative out there that Iran is caving.
So, if, let's say in a few days' time, he accepts a new proposal for Iran and decides to relax the blockade, he would have teed this up by saying
that Iran is the one that actually blinked first.
AMANPOUR: And do you think that he's correct saying the Iranians have informed him that they're in a, you know, state of collapse?
NASR: I doubt that. I would seriously doubt that, even if they were, that they would come and inform President Trump that they were about to
collapse.
AMANPOUR: Wendy Sherman, what do you think? I'm going to actually try to treat you both as opposite sides of this negotiating table. You, I'm going
to take as the Trump administration, and Vali is going to be the Iranian government. I mean nothing by any of this. I just want their position.
NASR: I don't know which is worse.
AMANPOUR: From your perspective, Wendy Sherman, is there -- do you see any logic to President Trump's attempt to end this war on terms that are
reasonable and to try to get this nuclear situation actually agreed and dealt with?
WENDY SHERMAN, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE: I think the Trump administration is in a very difficult place. It began this war without
clear objectives, without an overall strategy. Our military is just spectacular. As we've heard Secretary of Defense -- War say today in front
of the U.S. Congress, our military has performed fantastically, gotten rid of the Navy, pushed back their missile program, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera.
But we have this stalemate between the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before this war began, and the blockade. The president, it's
reported today, is going to keep this blockade up and may take some strikes against Iranian infrastructure.
I agree with Vali. I don't think this will change the calculus of Iran. It's existential for them, for Donald Trump. It is political, it is
markets, it's munitions, and it is the midterms. Whether he has already taken in the fact that the midterms are not looking good, particularly for
the House of Representatives, may mean he thinks he can keep this going for a while and we can sustain the pain. The U.S. has a lot of oil. Our people
have not, even though they're hurting, have not heard as much as Asia, as much of Europe, as much of the rest of the world.
And so, I believe Donald Trump believes he can sustain this. And his other choices, escalate even further or declare victory and go away, are not good
choices.
AMANPOUR: And I want to ask both of you about the concept that he's now been positing, Donald Trump, that the government in Iran is totally
fractured, cannot make a decision. And in fact, he said, when you guys get your act together, come and talk to me again about, you know, a ceasefire
proposal. Vali, what do you think is the accurate picture of the Iranian government?
NASR: I don't think they're fractured. I think they have a very clear sense of what has happened in this war, the gains that they have made, the
stalemate that Wendy's talking about. They have a consensus that they want to consolidate those gains. They were willing to talk to President Trump. I
think where there's a division is how to respond to his erratic behavior.
[13:25:00]
You know, that obviously throws their game plan off course. Should they go to Islamabad? Should they trust them? Can they actually trust the president
that changes his world every day? So, there's a reaction to his erratic behavior. But I think the Iranians have a very clear goal. They don't want
the war to go on indefinitely. They need an outcome. And they want a deal ultimately that would lift sanctions on them so they can repair their
economy and address the war reconstruction.
To them, the contours of how this would end is pretty clear. There's no such thing, I think, in Tehran that we don't want to talk to the United
States, period. They want certitude. And that's not what they're getting.
AMANPOUR: And just quickly, can you just tell us who's actually running the country? They say that Mojtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader, is
actually compos mentis. But it takes actually quite a long time to get messages to him. He has been badly injured. But he is still able to make
decisions.
NASR: Well, yes, it's very difficult to get to him, not only because he was heavily injured, but because of security reasons that Israel might want
to also assassinate him. And so, they're being very cautious. But in the sense of him giving direction, like, we are going to Islamabad. These are
our red lines. This is what we accept and we will not accept. I think he is in charge. And also, the people that he has put in other positions of power
are all his hand-picked appointees.
And so, they are like-minded with him. And in that sense, I think that what we're seeing in Iran is more cohesive that was under his father, who
actually had cultivated all of these factions, which had much more divisions among them than we see in Iran at now.
AMANPOUR: And, Wendy, I see you nodding to Vali's, you know, description of the system as it is right now. You've had personal experience. You've
sat across the negotiating table during the JCPOA. And I just wonder, because Trump is now saying that it must be, you know, he must get some
answers on the nuclear issue first before he can even talk about ending the war and lifting the blockade and et cetera.
The Iranians so far have said the opposite. First, we resolve the straits and the blockade. Then we talk about the nuclear issue. So, tell me what it
was like, you know, negotiating at that time compared to what you think it might be like with a whole new crop of much more hardline Iranians.
SHERMAN: Well, to sort of underscore what Vali said, there's always been debate inside the Iranian government, maybe more debate when we were
negotiating than Donald Trump may face now. We had an enormous negotiating team, a core team, but literally hundreds.
And, of course, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz before them, Secretary Clinton, all understood what
was necessary. There was a process of decision making within our government. A lot of that seems to have disappeared. I was glad when Vice
President Vance brought experts to the Islamabad meeting, but I don't know whether they were in any room or had anything to do with what was resolved.
So, Araghchi, who is leading this, is doing a lot of diplomacy, trying to seek out allies and partners, both in the Gulf and with Russia and with
China. We don't seem to be doing that kind of diplomacy. It is critical to make sure that you have people on side. And, of course, ours was a
multilateral negotiation. This is a bilateral negotiation, or at least through a mediator, Pakistan.
The stakes here are quite different. The economic pain is quite large. We see gas prices in the United States higher than they have been in four
years. The president believes we can sustain that. The rest of the world is going to be putting pressure on the United States to get this over with.
And, in fact, if both sides decided they would suspend both the blockade and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for some period of time during a
ceasefire negotiations, we might get to the nuclear program, which President Trump had once said was obliterated.
AMANPOUR: Not only that, he said it was obliterated and so did Netanyahu back in June when they did their joint attacks on the nuclear facilities.
But President Trump also pulled out of the deal that you and the others negotiated in 2015, the JCPOA.
And now, the situation appears to be even more difficult because there's that enormous amount of very highly enriched uranium to 60 percent. There's
apparently a huge amount of lower enriched but nonetheless enriched uranium hanging around, something like maybe 10 tons, according to various experts.
President Trump has not been able to get a better deal at all. Nobody has. Even the Biden administration couldn't get them back to the table again.
So, is it a question of having to start? Where do you start if now the Trump administration wants to start with new nuclear negotiations?
[13:30:00]
SHERMAN: I think you start with dealing with that which is bringing economic pain, not only to the families in the United States, but all over
the world, particularly in Asia, which totally relies on the Strait of Hormuz and on Europe, and dealing with that to open up space during a
ceasefire for negotiations.
There may be other creative ways forward. That's what you need here. The president seems to think that he can keep punishing Iran and we will
outlast them. As Vali has pointed out, that is not likely to happen. As many analysts have pointed out, that is not likely to happen.
So, I would hope that in that situation room, that President Trump is bringing in some people who have dealt with Iran, including Vali Nasr, and
try to get some creative ways forward here.
AMANPOUR: So, on the nuclear issue, Vali, then, given all the stuff that I said about how much they have, especially that highly enriched uranium, and
that President Trump is said to demand a 20-year suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment as part of full dismantlement, where do you see a
beating of the minds, as there was in 2015, on a nuclear deal?
NASR: First of all, the president putting these numbers, ideas on his own out there is not helpful, because it actually makes it very difficult for
the Iranians to even argue at home that they're not just surrendering, or they didn't just surrender in Islamabad. They feel compelled to have to
come back and say no, even louder, just to prove that they didn't surrender.
But it's also important to note that what the Obama administration and Wendy and the team achieved in those negotiations was first to establish
trust. In other words, that deal in was possible because the Iranians actually trusted that the Obama administration was honest at the table,
wanted a deal, and was going to implement a deal.
I think that President Trump has lost that altogether. He can't bring Iranians to the table, because regardless of what's on the table, 20 years,
10 years, all of the nuclear material or not, because they have no trust that he actually will implement the deal that he signs, and he's not going
to walk away from it the next day. And the way he behaved erratically after Islamabad actually made the trust issue much worse.
And what they're seeing in this lifting of the blockade, basically, they're saying, let's see you do something and we reciprocate. Let's build that
trust around just lifting this economic issue. If we can survive that step, then we can go to the much bigger issue. Whereas, as Wendy said, President
Trump wants to force them to give up all of their assets all at once to somebody who they have zero trust would actually come through on his side.
AMANPOUR: And, Wendy, I don't know whether you've read, but there's a widely distributed article by H. R. McMaster, who was, you know, a
commander, an officer in Iraq, but also Trump's 1.0 national security adviser. And he's essentially saying, into Alia (ph), that the West,
including the JCPOA, has been essentially appeasing Iran, trying to get them to behave and essentially not fixing the problem at the root ever. And
now, we're at this point. What do you make of that?
SHERMAN: Well, I'm not surprised that that is the critique. I've heard that a lot, certainly heard it when we were negotiating. And I often said
to members of Congress, we have a choice here and to other critics around the world. We have a choice here. We can either negotiate and try to put
such constraints and intrusive monitoring and verification on their nuclear program that they can never get a nuclear weapon, which we all agree is a
critical objective, or we can face a war, a war that once you start, you don't know where it ends. And we are seeing that now. There have been all
kinds of secondary and tertiary effects of the actions that President Trump has taken. We are all suffering from them.
Yes, Iran is suffering a great deal. But as Vali pointed out, and as I believe, for Iran, this is existential, they are not going to give up
quickly. And we need to put some ideas on the table. And I quite agree with Vali as well. The president should approach this with a lot more
constraint.
For me, it's not about trust, but it is about respecting that Iran has interests, and it has a government, and it is a sovereign country, even
though I find the regime odious and it slaughtered its own people. Ultimately, this was about protecting the people of Iran and allowing them
space for freedom. In fact, we've constrained that possibility, as opposed to opening up that space.
AMANPOUR: Now, Wendy Sherman, I said that I would ask you this, just following up from my question to Mishal Husain in my previous segment,
talking about slaughter. You basically told her on her podcast that in essence, Netanyahu had created a genocide in Gaza and that the United
States, quote, "has been part of it."
[13:35:00]
You also said it remains critical that Israel stay an ally of the United States. What moved you to make that statement? As Mishal was saying, you're
one of the, you know, older generation of Americans. The younger generation is busy saying all those things. And I know you didn't make a legal
judgment, but what are you trying to say as an American Jew?
SHERMAN: What I'm trying to say is things have changed. I spend a lot of time with younger people. I try to listen and learn as I think my parents
did with me during the Vietnam War. And although many legal analysts have said this is a genocide, what really matters here is, yes, I understand how
horrific October 7th was. It was horrific and it is existential for Israel. I support Israel and we must continue to support Israel.
But there was a slaughter of the Palestinian people in Gaza. And indeed, we're seeing the prime minister of Israel talk about taking over the West
Bank and really closing any space there might be for the Palestinian people. And the United States of America, the values that we believe in,
Israel must be safe and secure and have peace forever. And the Palestinians have to be able to have dignity and a place they can call their own as
well. That's what I was trying to say.
AMANPOUR: Understood. And in our last minute, Vali, some unintended consequences. Obviously, Israel and the United States appear to have
different aims now in Iran. But also, what about the U.S. bases in the Gulf states? What about UAE pulling out of OPEC in a minute?
NASR: Well, a war of this magnitude would definitely have changed everything in the Middle East. I mean, every country is looking at why the
U.S. did this, what are the repercussions. And these repercussions are greatest in the Gulf region because it became collateral damage to this
war. The United States had bases there. Iran attacked those bases. Iran also attacked the economies of those countries.
Most of the Gulf has really lost its economy. That sense of security, et cetera, that existed is gone. And this is now problematizing the
relationship with the United States. These bases were supposed to protect them. They didn't. Do they go back to more of that? How do they get their
security back? How do they deal with an Iran that now looks like unleashed?
And so, I think all of these things would be challenges for the United States and the region for years to come.
AMANPOUR: Vali Nasr and Wendy Sherman, thank you very much for this discussion.
SHERMAN: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. And we'll be back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, amid the pomp and circumstance of hosting a king and trying to end a war, our next guest argues that President Trump must sideline
nuclear talks and focus on opening the Strait of Hormuz if he wants to save the world economy.
And you heard us just discuss all of this. Retired Admiral Bill McRaven has over three decades of military expertise. He oversaw the Navy SEAL raid
that killed Osama bin Laden. And he's become widely known for famous speeches like "Make Your Bed" for a graduation ceremony in 2014. Now, he's
collected some of those speeches into a new book. And he joins Walter Isaacson to discuss this, the Iran conflict and the importance of
leadership.
[13:40:00]
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Admiral Bill McRaven welcome back to the show.
ADM. WILLIAM MCRAVEN (RET.), AUTHOR, "DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY & LIFE": Thanks, Walter. Good to be with you.
ISAACSON: You have a new book out called "Duty, Honor, Country & Life." It's got essays in it. speeches in it, even a few poems. And you say it's a
book about the American spirit. How do you define the American spirit these days?
MCRAVEN: Well, you know, I think of the American spirit is kind of the personification of what we think of as the American character. This idea
that as Americans we can do anything. You know, we can we put a man on the moon We can send four people around the moon. We can cure cancer. We can we
can take A.I. and do something good with it.
But it is also the understanding that our values as Americans are important. This idea of equality and justice and the rule of law, and this
idea that we want to be the good guys in the world. I think this is the American character and it is personified in the American spirit and the
people that I have met over my time both in the military and academia and health care, and these stories that I tell, these speeches really are
stories about people that have inspired me throughout my life.
ISAACSON: You talk about doing. Good let me take a specific example, which is USAID. Our foreign aid program, especially when it came to health. To
what extent -- is there somebody like yourself who dealt with military, the projection of military power to get people around the world to do what we
wanted. To what extent does that undermine what we're trying to do?
MCRAVEN: Make no mistake about it. USAID was vital to our soft power in the world. And look, I got it, USAID probably had a lot of problems. You
know, every government organization needs to you know, need to be reviewed periodically. We need to kind of cut the waste.
But at the end of the day, our ability as Americans to project soft power in the form of USAID and other humanitarian aid really, again, helped us
with this reputation of being the good guys. Every time, Walter, there was an earthquake, a tsunami, you know, a hurricane, any sort of devastation,
you know, the American military was there with our big-deck amphibs and USAID care packages that we put forth in, you know, countries all around
the world. And this was meaningful, again, in strengthening those relationships
So, it's not just about being good for good sake, yes, that's important, but it also has this value of strengthening our alliances and strengthening
the bonds so that when we really need them they'll be there.
ISAACSON: Your book has come out just in time for the 250th birthday, July 4th of 2026. Tell me how can this book and other books like it help us
regain the American spirit and how can we use this birthday, this 250th to try to diminish some of the polarization that sapped our spirit?
MCRAVEN: Well, again, as we approach the 250th, I gave a speech couple years back in the New York Historical Society. And it was at a time -- and
again, we've had these times in the last couple years where people were beginning to doubt, you know, the strength of our democracy.
So, I talked a lot about our democracy and I said, look, and as you well know probably better than anybody, Walter, this is still the great
experiment. You know, we're not done yet. And if we want to make it another 250 years, then I -- you know, I offered some ideas on how we needed to get
there. And when you look back over the last 250 years I started off with saying, look, we do need to be the good guys.
I talked about, you know, the Marshall Plan or the Berlin Airlift and the things that we have done globally to strengthen America's sense that we are
-- you know, we have the moral high ground. But then I talked about other things I said, look, we need to be welcoming. The fact of the matter is
we've got about 45 million immigrants that are here in the country now We are a nation that has come over here by boat in them for the most part
either willingly or unwillingly. And the fact the matter is we need to continue to be welcoming. We need to continue to be smart.
I am concerned we are reducing our support to our one universities, the research universities that really become the foundation for a lot of our
growth and our innovativeness, you know, we need to continue to be strong. No question about it. We need a strong military.
We need to continue to recognize the sacrifice of those men and women in uniform, those first responders, and continue to do that. And my last point
was we need to continue to be compassionate. Because I think this is what sets us apart from Russia, from China, from other countries around the
world.
ISAACSON: Let me ask you a very broad question. What is the role -- what is the connection of the military to democracy?
MCRAVEN: Well, I mean, at the end of the day, for the American military, I think it is important to, again, come from the democracy. Now, come from
the people of the nation.
[13:45:00]
This is, of course, the military, as you know, it's less than -- you know, 1 percent of the of the American people have served in the military today.
But that doesn't mean that these 1 percent aren't viewed with great respect in the communities they come from. And so, their ability, the young
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, their ability to kind of get out in their communities, showcase how good these young men and
women are, I think really helps strengthen our democracy.
But it is also this recognition that as the military, we respond to the civilian chain of command. Whether we like it or not, the fact of the
matter is the President was elected by the people. He is the elected commander-in-chief, and we in the military have a responsibility to follow
the legal orders of the president of the United States.
And I have encouraged all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines to do that. As long as those orders are legal and consistent with the
Constitution, then you follow them. And this is a strong part of our democracy, civilian rule of the military.
ISAACSON: You just said, as long as those orders are legal and constitutional. And as you know, there's been a controversy recently.
Senator Mark Kelly, who served in the military, six other, I think, Democrats, all reminded people in the military they did not have to obey
orders that were not legal. And now, Senator Kelly is being investigated. Tell me -- parse that controversy for me.
MCRAVEN: Yes. Well, again, as a retired military officer, you technically still fall under the uniform code of military justice. However, nobody in
the history of the United States military that was retired has ever been prosecuted for speaking up when they were retired.
And I do think it is important. I'm a huge fan of Mark Kelly. I appreciated what he did. I understand the controversy behind it. It came at a kind of a
critical moment, and I understand the concern. But I tell this -- I tell my, you know, audiences, the young soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, the
same thing. You have an obligation to follow the legal orders of the commander in chief. You swore an oath. But you also should not be following
illegal orders.
Now, for the young troops, that's hard. You know, the young soldiers, they're not trying to parse the legal and the illegal. But this is really
the responsibility of the senior officers, as I once was, and the senior enlisted to express their concern when they see something that isn't legal.
But I can tell you, in my 37 years in the military, never once. Never once did I feel like somebody had given me an illegal order.
There may have been orders I didn't like and that I questioned, but they were never illegal. And therefore, you still have an obligation to follow
them if they are legal.
ISAACSON: We're now two months into the Iran War. Tell me, in your mind, as a military officer, what do you think the actual mission is?
MCRAVEN: Yes. Well, of course, it's hard to tell at this point in time. You know, every president since 1979 has been trying to change the regime
in Iran. And Iran is a horrible regime. Make no mistake about it. The fact of the matter is they have killed hundreds, maybe thousands, have been
responsible for the deaths of hundreds or thousands of American soldiers, along with some of our allies. They are spreading terrorism around the
world. I have no love lost whatsoever for the Iranian regime.
But as President Trump came in -- and again, this -- he probably thought he had this unique opportunity to change the landscape in the Middle East. But
here's what the military leaders would have told the president from the very beginning. They would have said, look, changing regimes is hard. So,
if you think by bombing them, they're all of a sudden going to give up, probably not going to happen. Particularly in Iran, the regime is wide and
it is deep.
So, taking out the supreme leader just means that somebody else is going to step up. And, oh, by the way, you took out an 86-year-old man, now you got
a 56-year-old man. And even according to Israeli intelligence, the new regime is even more hardline.
So, they would have told him, the military would have told the president, regime change is hard. The military would have also said, we've never
bombed our way to victory. So, in no point in time in the history of the military, we bombed our way to victory. It was going to be hard.
The final thing they would have -- well, they would have also said, look, if you think there's going to be this uprising and we'll have a
Jeffersonian democracy, that's probably not going to happen. It could, it could, but it's unlikely.
But the one thing they would absolutely positively have told the president is you never, ever, ever, ever talk about Iran without talking about the
Straits of Hormuz. They would have told the president, as soon as you start bombing Iran, they are going to do what they can to close the Straits of
Hormuz. And clearly, they have done that.
So, now the question is going forward, where do we go? Well, the Iranians have come forward and they said, if you will lift the blockade that we will
open the Straits. I've been saying for the last several weeks that this is something the president should have put on the table. He should have told
the Iranians, I will lift the blockade if you will open the Straits, because he's got to think about what are his strategic goals at this point
in time.
[13:50:00]
The world economy is getting crushed. And the only way it's going to pick up is if we can open the Straits. Unfortunately, now that the Iranians have
come forward with this offer, I'm not sure the president will buy it. But the blockade, he can turn the blockade on, turn the blockade off. He should
seriously consider this offer from the Iranians.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. You're saying that the strategic objective right now should be to open the Straits. Well, the Straits were already opened. If we
just do that and we don't do anything with the Iranian nuclear program, is that worth this effort?
MCRAVEN: No, no. The piece of this that I failed to mention was you have to get the Iranians to the negotiating table. You have to do that. And what
I've been saying over the last couple of weeks is, if the president told the Iranians, we will lift the blockade, if you will open the Straits and
come to the negotiating table, now we can begin the negotiations.
And again, this is what the Iranians have now offered. I wish the president would have moved before the Iranians. But the fact of the matter is they've
offered this. And when you look back on the JCPOA, the Obama nuclear plan, it took 18 months to negotiate with people that were professional
negotiators. So, at least get the Iranians to the negotiating table. Then you can talk about the ballistic missiles. Then you can talk about how much
uranium can be in risk. Then you can grapple with all the sticky issues that are out there. But until you get the Straits open, I think the
president comes under a lot of pressure. And of course, so do the Iranians.
ISAACSON: You talk about ending the Iranian nuclear program and regime change having been the two big goals. So, does that mean that if the
Iranians do not agree to what we need, we would have to put boots on the ground?
MCRAVEN: Yes. I would certainly not recommend putting boots on the ground. One, people sometimes underestimate the size of Iran. I'm from Texas,
Walter, and Iran is two and a half times the size of Texas. And I try to explain to people, look, that's like telling people that you're going to
put Marines in West Texas and expect them to move all the way to Houston. This is just it's hard, hard to do.
Could we take Kharg Island? Yes, we probably could. But it would be very risky to do so. I don't see putting boots on the ground as a real option.
I'd say the president won't, but I don't really know what it would gain him. What I have been saying from day one was that if the Iranian regime
survives, Iran wins.
And so, right now, the president is in a very difficult position. The Iranian regime, unless there is a collapse of the regime and a more
moderate theocracy or some other administration comes in, back to your question, are we any better off than we were prior to February 28th? Well,
we have decimated their Navy. We have decimated their Air Force. We have certainly put back their nuclear program. But how much better off are we? I
think that remains to be seen.
ISAACSON: I don't think anybody knows more about special forces than you do. I mean, you got bin Laden with your special forces. Is there a way to
use special forces to get the enriched uranium out of Iran?
MCRAVEN: Yes, I won't go into details, Walter. But let's just say it would be very, very difficult. Not impossible, but very, very difficult and very
risky.
ISAACSON: Does that mean that you game plan this or people in the military have and they say, hey, this is not easy?
MCRAVEN: Yes. Well, we have certainly game planned it for all sorts of scenarios. And it is never easy. But again, I don't want to put any of the
soldiers at risk if this plan is getting closer, which I don't know that it is. But I think we'll just kind of leave the discussion at that point.
ISAACSON: In your book, one of your themes is how your belief in God has helped you and sustained you. Tell me about that and then also how you feel
about the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, invoking God the way he does.
MCRAVEN: Well, yes, I've always been a man of faith. And I think that faith has helped me through some very, very challenging time. I talk about
it in the book and it has meant a lot to me. But I'm also a believer in the separation of kind of church and state here. And in the military, I have
spent time with -- you know, with people from every religion, so great soldiers. And you never try to impress your religion upon your teammates.
Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, it doesn't make any difference. You want to be an American soldier and, again, keep your faith out of the
tactical discussions, if you will.
[13:55:00]
So, I'm not in favor of the Secretary invoking the Christian religion in terms of how this is a crusade against Iran.
ISAACSON: Admiral Bill McRaven, thank you so much for joining us.
MCRAVEN: My pleasure, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Indeed, that is controversial. And finally, a Senegalese hair artist is turning heads. Elizabeth Njoki is creating gravity-defying Afro
styles to promote natural African hair. One of her most iconic looks was Senegal's entry to the Miss Universe pageant, the breathtaking Afro
inspired by a lion's mane, shifting the focus from the wigs and extensions typically worn by past contestants. Njoki's online movement, called Afro
Babies, continues to grow. Its mission is to restore African women's confidence in their own natural beauty and roots.
That is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
