Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with University of Tehran Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Hassan Ahmadian; Interview with "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever" Host, Burn Book" Author and Business and Tech Journalist Kara Swisher; Interview with The Atlantic Contributor Writer Peter Wehner. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 30, 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)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The blockade is genius, OK? The blockade has been 100 percent foolproof.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump digs in for an extended blockade on Iran as the United Arab Emirates shocks the world by quitting OPEC. I look at big changes in
the Persian Gulf with the Iranian Middle East expert Hassan Ahmadian.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARA SWISHER, HOST, "KARA SWISHER WANTS TO LIVE FOREVER", AUTHOR, BURN BOOK" and BUSINESS AND TECH JOURNALIST: Knowing that time is finite has
been a great motivator in my life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever. But is that really a good idea? The award-winning journalist cuts through the hype of longevity and
anti-aging.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER WEHNER, CONTRIBUTOR WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: The war is being framed as a holy war, as a religious war. And that's the wrong frame.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- how the Trump administration invokes Christianity to justify its war on Iran. Michel Martin speaks with former Bush speechwriter Peter
Wehner.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
At the heart of the current standoff in Iran is the classic question, who has the watch and who has the time? Donald Trump bets that extending his
blockade will break Iran's economy and drive negotiators back to the table. While Iran's leaders believe choking off the strait of Hormuz gives them
the ultimate leverage over the global economy. As gas and oil prices spike and Trump's approval ratings hit new lows.
Meanwhile, threats of renewed military aggression are growing. A senior Iranian military official is taunting the White House saying, we have
already seen what happened to your bases in the region. In fact, America's vulnerability in the Gulf was highlighted in Congress on Wednesday. As
Democratic Representative Patrick Ryan grilled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about six U.S. soldiers who were killed in an Iranian drone attack
at the Shuaiba port in Kuwait.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAT RYAN (D-NY): Before the war started, there was clear intelligence that Shuaiba was high on Iran's target list. Internal analysis had said the
site was indefensible from aerial attack and should not be used. Yet you sent our soldiers from the 103rd Sustainment Command there anyway. Is that
true or false? True or false? Straightforward question.
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: Are you going to give me a chance to answer or just play gotcha?
RYAN: Did you send them there or not?
HEGSETH: I always -- we had -- we took proactive measures.
RYAN: I'll take that as a yes and reclaim my time.
HEGSETH: -- from the beginning to ensure forces protection and defensive posture --
RYAN: Now, let's talk -- Mr. Secretary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: There are also reports the United States may be preparing for more strong strikes on Iran. And what about the Gulf states with the UAE
quitting OPEC, is there a new security order taking shape in the Persian Gulf?
Joining me now from Doha for an Iranian perspective on these critical questions is Hassan Ahmadian. He's professor of Middle Eastern Studies at
the University of Tehran. Mr. Ahmadian, welcome to the program. Can I start by asking you --
HASSAN AHMADIAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN: Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: Yes, welcome. Can I start by asking you to try to tell me what's happening from the Iranian government perspective? Because I know you're
very well aware and plugged in. So, today, the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei put out a statement talking about Persian Gulf Day and essentially
saying Iran's enemies will land up at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Do you think Iran is preparing, believes that there is another round of active
war coming?
AHMADIAN: As we speak, Christiane, there is a third war waged on the country in the form of a siege. It's an act of war imposed on the country.
The Iranians went for negotiations for three times and afterwards they were faced with acts of wars. One back in June, the second, just the latest one,
and now a siege on the country.
And so, we hear the Iranians digging in, saying that we will not succumb to U.S. demands and pressure. And that was expected. They are talking about
retaliation if the United States is to continue harassing Iranian shipments in the Gulf of Oman, which it did against two ships.
[13:05:00]
And so, we hear this defiance that if there is another conflict, the Iranians will basically retaliate in kind. I think what's concerning is
that the United States believes that Iran can still succumb to its demands. The Iranians offered their proposal before the war that mediators said that
was very rational of a proposal, but yet they were attacked.
Now, the logic here is that the more you show appeasement to this administration, the more you will face war or bad consequences on the part
of the United States. And so, defiance is the response, that is, stand up to pressure and push back against it, which they did back in the war, in
the 40 days war, and now they're doing in the siege.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, what you term a siege is the U.S. blockade of the Iranian ports. And the president has doubled down. It appears that he is
telling his aides and posting that he's prepared for a long blockade. So, as I posed in the introduction, you know, it's a question of a test of
wills, a test of time, and who can take the most pain.
Do you think Iran at this point, with its weakened economy and an economy that's getting weaker every day, can it last a long U.S. siege?
AHMADIAN: I think time is definitely working to Iran's favor. Back in the first Trump administration, the Iranian oil exports went down to 300,000
barrels of oil daily for roughly a year. And still, the Iranians managed to keep their economy above water. Their exports nowadays is way beyond that
level, and I think even the siege couldn't stop them exporting more than that.
And so, time -- of course, the pressure on Iran is immense and it's increasing, but it's still way below what was in the first Trump
administration, because the Iranians learned the hard way how to circumvent those sanctions and U.S., you know, economic pressure on the country.
On the other hand, there are the munition shortage, the defenses on the part of the United States and Israel. There is the midterm that is
approaching, that is putting pressure on the U.S. administration. And there are the markets that are hurting as a result of the siege and, of course,
the war that came with the situation we see in the Strait of Hormuz. So, there is this sense, very strong sense in Iran that time is working to
their favor.
But at the same time, they would -- I suspect they would not sit on their hands with the United States harassing their shipments. Two days ago,
before the supreme leader talked, the Khatam al-Anbiya, you know, base announced -- or issued an announcement saying that they will retaliate.
This is the body that is responsible for Iran's war efforts, which means it was given the directions. That it has -- the decision has been made that it
has to retaliate against the U.S. provocations against Iran's shipments, which I think will lead to escalation.
Now, whether or not that would widen the war like the one we saw the past, you know, 50 days, that's we should wait and see. But I think escalation is
looming large as we speak.
AMANPOUR: What kind of retaliation?
AHMADIAN: Well, I think the Khatam al-Anbiya was clear in that if another attack on Iran's shipments, we saw one of them happening. The Iranians
retaliated in the Strait of Hormuz, but now they're talking about targeting U.S. forces that are harassing Iran's shipments. I think that is very much
in the picture now with this announcement. And I think we are we are bound to see escalation if there are seizure of Iranian ships or harassment of
Iranian ships, according to Iranian officials.
AMANPOUR: Let me just drill down a little bit on the internal situation economically. You know, clearly the United States, Israel is betting on
squeezing the Iranian government, squeezing the people.
[13:10:00]
And, you know, the pain threshold regarding poverty, the shortage of food and other things. Look, inflation is now at 50 percent. It was 40 percent
before the war. The real currency has hit a record low this week. Public panic over declining purchasing power. At least 191,000 workers have
applied for unemployment support since the war. How sustainable is this wartime economy?
AHMADIAN: Well, economically, as I said, Iran is under pressure. The Iranians are under pressure. And basically, the siege has a collective
punishment tool is working, but very slowly. I think we have months and months before seeing its effect kicking in. That's if Iran doesn't take
action and escalate against U.S. siege. I think escalation is Iran's preferred option if the siege is to be really implemented against Iran.
Now, economically, the Iranians are managing their economy for the past decade under maximum pressure. And, of course, that created many hardships
in the country. And now, we have damaged infrastructure as a result of war. They're in need of opening of the economy. But having said that, I believe
there's the rally around the flag that we saw in the war is still very much sensed with the United States pushing harder and harder against Iran.
And I think that's that shouldn't be sidelined in any discussion. I think that's what's driving people still in the streets demonstrating against
U.S. aggression, as it is being called in Iran, and U.S. provocations against the country. You see, that is very much helping the political
system in Iran and its pushback against the United States.
Now, moving forward, maybe in months, hardships will grow and many things can change. But at this point, I think time is really not of concern for
months to come to Iran. Of course, the hardships are there. They were there before the war, and they will continue to be there if there is no deal with
the United States and with the West in general.
But generally, I think the Iranians have shown that they can live with sanctions, though hardships are biting their daily lives.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you about that, because clearly people are under huge hardship and have been for many, many years. You say you talk
about rallying around the flag now, but you say things may change in the future. So, I'm trying to figure out what changes you think. I mean, as you
know, before the war started in January, there was such economic distress that that caused the protests and then they were brutally put down.
Do you think the leadership is at all concerned or thinks at all about whether the people will again, let's say after the war or at some point
feel so much pain again, that they will want to rise up and as they said before, get rid of this government of theirs?
AHMADIAN: Well, everyone is concerned with the economics of the country. Daily lives are under pressure. And, you know, the demonstrations that
happened back in January before turning violent for 10 days, they were basically calling for economic changes in the country, the policies and the
criticizing mismanagement and corruption, et cetera. And I think in the future we might see that.
But also, much news came in just two weeks ago. President Trump was saying that we send arms into Iran in January. I think that's very much circulated
in Iran. And I think there's no -- you know, the MEK also said that more than 100 of its operatives were killed in the streets. So, it was it was,
you know, economic hardship. People fed up with their economics internally, but also used by external powers to instigate civil unrest that is armed.
And that's very much now known in Iran.
I think many people who would see themselves protesting for their economic situation would reframe for the time being. Moving forward, of course, if
there's more hardships on the economic -- economy and their daily lives, they might also demonstrate for the betterment of their economic situation.
But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
AMANPOUR: OK.
[13:15:00]
AHMADIAN: I take it into account that we saw just recently a war on the country that added to the hardships in the country.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me -- obviously, the MEK is the anti-regime group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and they are known to have done all sorts of things
like that. There is no evidence that I know of that President Trump sent weapons into Iran. I will check on it, but there's nothing I know about
that. It may be circulating, but I'm not sure that that's factual.
But that's -- what I'm trying to ask you next is, with all of this, what does that mean for Doha, where you are now, Qatar? What does it mean for
the reshaping potentially of the GCC order? Just yesterday with OPEC -- sorry, with UAE pulling out of OPEC, that's a real shot across the bow.
What do you see happening in the GCC?
AHMADIAN: Well, I think two shocks hit the GCC just recently. One is the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran with Iran retaliating against U.S. bases, which
basically brought down the logic of having bases as a security umbrella in this region. They actually turned them into magnets for Iranian attacks on
U.S. bases.
The second shock just came yesterday. I think it's based on the geopolitics that are shifting in the region. We saw before the war on Iran, UAE and
Saudi Arabia going head-to-head in multiple fronts in Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Syria. Obviously, that rivalry has a lot to do with the UAE withdrawing
from the OPEC. That means that UAE is drifting step by step away from the consensual mechanisms that are though shallow, but they were working in the
region.
OPEC is one of the oldest organizations that Iran and the UAE and many other countries in the region were a member of. Now, with the UAE
withdrawing, they're saying that it's our sovereign right. Of course, it is. But at the same time, it adds to the rivalry that already exists. And I
think it complicates things not only within the GCC, but within the region generally, because UAE is now viewed in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, around the
region. It's allying itself more and more with Israel.
And, you know, Israel just attacked Iran. And so, these kinds of complications are to overshadow much of the politics and geopolitics in the
region moving forward.
AMANPOUR: Last question about the leadership in Iran. President Trump keeps saying that it's fragmented and he's waiting for a coherent answer to
his peace proposals. So, can you just tell me, you know, who's in charge and is actually the IRGC, the followers of Mojtaba Khamenei, are they -- is
that where the seat of power is right now? In other words, is it more directly consolidating in the military side of the Iranian government?
AHMADIAN: I'm not sure that's the case. I think there are two sides to this story that keeps coming up in the United States. One is that I don't
think it's news. I think it's an agenda to sow division within the Iranian political system. The name of the game, stopping the consolidation of the
power in the hands of the new leadership in Iran. That's, I think, a goal that comes up with all these talking points.
But within Iran, we don't see indications to that direction. So, far, we didn't see anyone resign or pushed out of power or basically sidelined.
There are no indications. But when it comes to who's running Iran, I think it goes without saying that it's the Supreme National Security Council.
That's the highest authority on strategic decision-making within Iran. The supreme leader, of course, has the veto power over its decisions.
Now, whether or not he goes against its decisions or not, I mean, it depends on the circumstance and the issue that is discussed. Within that
body, of course, the IRGC, the Artesh, the foreign ministry, the president, all, you know, 13 members are part of the political system in Iran, all
sides of it. And they basically discuss and take the decision.
[13:20:00]
Now, in times of war, of course, louder voices of military, IRGC, could be heard in the country. I think that's what's causing the call for -- or the
assumption that the IRGC is running the country. But I don't see that happening. At least I didn't see much indications to that direction.
The IRGC has been working within the framework that was announced by the Supreme National Security Council right after the ceasefire, the three-page
document that basically talked about how the Strait of Hormuz would be worked on and how Iran would position itself internally and externally
against future aggressions.
There are, of course, speculations that the United States is accumulating power and ammunition and forces to maybe attack Iran once more. Just --
Israelis recently were talking about -- Israeli leaders are talking about resumption of conflict or possibility of resumption of conflict with Iran.
So, they're getting ready to that. But that all is being worked on within Iran based on the three-page document issued by the Supreme National
Security Council. I didn't see a divergence there.
AMANPOUR: Thank you very much. Hassan Ahmadian. Hassan, thank you for joining us. Professor at the University of Tehran, for the moment in Doha,
Qatar.
And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, would you want to live forever? It seems plenty of ultra- rich tech titans do, and they're using their considerable money and influence to shape the race to live longer. Kara Swisher, the acclaimed
tech and business journalist, says the Silicon Valley bros are doing it wrong. In a new series on CNN, she cuts through the hype to separate real
science from wishful thinking. Here's a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you comfy?
KARA SWISHER, HOST, "KARA SWISHER WANTS TO LIVE FOREVER", AUTHOR, BURN BOOK" AND BUSINESS AND TECH JOURNALIST: I feel like I'm in an air fryer,
but sure.
How often do you go in this thing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Daily.
SWISHER: Tech bros are desperate to live longer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a lot of money in this.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kara, this longevity trend, hasn't the earth suffered enough? Shouldn't we just die?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The series is called "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever," and the eponymous one joins me now from New York. Kara, welcome to the program.
SWISHER: Hi, Christiane, how you doing?
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I'm surprised, having seen some of the episodes, and will see more, that it says "Kara Swisher Wants to Live Forever," because
you don't come across as wanting to live forever. In fact, you're poking holes in all these bros that want to live forever.
SWISHER: Yes, you got the joke.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I did. Oh, it was a joke. OK.
SWISHER: I want to live longer, better, is what it is, and sort of collapse the health span, lifespan problem. A lot of people live longer
than they're healthy. And actually, in the United States, the gulf is enormous, much more so than anywhere in the world.
And so, I want to see what's -- I was sort of struck by all the charlatanism online right now about health and everything else, by the way,
and the real science that's really developing that could really help us live healthier, longer lives. And so, I wanted to show both things. And of
course, it's being spurred by tech billionaires who are so narcissistic, they just want to preserve their godlike bodies as long as they can.
AMANPOUR: Well, you know, you've interviewed so many of them. And as you say, you interviewed Brian Johnson, who's a tech entrepreneur. And I'm
going to put a clip of your conversation with him and then we'll get into it.
SWISHER: Sure.
[13:25:00]
BRIAN JOHNSON, TECH ENTREPRENEUR: The primary thing that we want to do is to say, like, let's just not die.
SWISHER: So, why do you phrase it like that? Because it is phrased and you market it and it's quite marketed, I want to live forever.
JOHNSON: Oh, I don't. So, it's -- I specifically do not say, I want to live forever.
SWISHER: OK. But you said you don't want to die.
JOHNSON: Don't die is very different.
SWISHER: OK. Explain that for me.
JOHNSON: Don't die is not about me. it's not about a select group. It's about a species. This is like literally a homo sapien like endeavor.
SWISHER: So, you're in it for humanity, not for self-aggrandizement?
JOHNSON: Like what else is there to play for?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Did you buy that? That it wasn't for him to --
SWISHER: No.
AMANPOUR: OK. What do you think is motivating them?
SWISHER: Well, because -- well, I think he has an empty hole in his soul, I guess, like a lot of them is that they feel like they have all the money
in the world. But the one thing that happens is biology is undefeated. And so, they're thinking if they could hack everything else, which they have,
for the most part, they can hack this. And so, they really can't. But the struggle to do it is really both poignant and really pathetic, because if
they spent the money on helping poverty, if they like Mackenzie Scott does or spent the money on gold standard testing of these things.
And in Brian's case, I happen to like him and I knew him in the before times. He spends $2 million a year. He's 45, 46 to look forty 45 or 46,
essentially. But with better packs, I guess. Well done. Anybody could do that, really.
And so, one of the things that struck me is that because they're testing on just him, it doesn't help humanity in any way. It helps Brian Johnson. And
so, you know, through the -- and he's like, has this thing. Well, if he puts it out, people could copy him. But people can't copy him because he's
spending $2 million a year. And so, my whole thing was, why are you doing this if you really want to help humanity? And he calls himself a
rejuvenation athlete. It's a sport I don't understand.
AMANPOUR: Every time you turn around, there's a new name for what's happening. A rejuvenation athlete. I like that. Look, I want to touch on
something that you raised when we started to talk. You talked about, I think, you know, a sick society or a healthy society or whatever. You
talked about the difference between America and the U.K.
So, I just, in preparation for you, pulled this column by Simon Cooper of the FT. And, he -- you know, he noted that in 2024, global life expectancy
reached 73.3 years, which is a new record. But it's the discrepancy is worse in the U.S. where the average person in 2019 lived with a disability,
for instance, you know, 12.4 years of sickness before death.
SWISHER: That's a delta.
AMANPOUR: That's huge. And then all this life extending while things that traditionally give you the will to live and the joy of life and a natural
sort of boosters are all declining. And I think you touched on that in your -- you know, in the piece as well.
SWISHER: Yes, I think it's really interesting. The United States spends $15,000 per capita on health care compared to the U.K. All peer countries,
which is about 6,000 to 7,000. And we're at the bottom of everything, every list that you could be on. So, we're sicker and we're -- it's more
expensive. So, from an economic point of view, it's real. We shouldn't be doing this. We could save a lot of money if we did a lot of things.
And I think what happens is we have not a health care industry in the United States because we don't have universal health care, really, and it's
not inexpensive. That there's a difference -- it's not health care, it's sick care. And that's the wrong way to think about it. If you could do all
these preventative things early on, like they do in Korea. I went to Korea, one of the longest living populations in the world, especially women, you
could prevent a lot of what would happen later, which is inevitable, with senescent cells. But you could have this life where the lifespan and the
health span gels together. So, you live a longer, healthier life until your dying day.
AMANPOUR: Well, I think that's really interesting because it's one thing to live much longer, it's another thing to live healthy and joyfully and
actually enjoy those last years. But I want to pick up on what you mentioned about South Korea and women. Because, look, a lot of these young
men, and you mentioned, you know, Brian, who's 46 and all pecked up and, you know, looks pretty good physically.
SWISHER: Bezos.
AMANPOUR: Bezos, exactly, doing the same thing. Women have been under this pressure to look good and to, you know, perform like -- you know, like they
were sort of showpieces, right? And now, the men are doing it. What gives?
SWISHER: Well, you know, when women did it, it's body dysmorphia. When men do it, it's body hacking. Like, of course. Like, it's seen as a good thing.
It's part of, you know, this narcissistic tendency with a lot of these people that we're talking about.
[13:30:00]
But I think it's a real fear of death. And one of the things that came through very clearly is a lot of studies. Fear of death leads to lack of
longevity. And acceptance of death makes you live longer and happier, which is fascinating when you think about it. And I think they're just fearful.
And they live in this sort of bubbles and they're very wealthy, and they can buy everything. But, you know, there is a -- you can't take it with you
kind of quality to everything we do.
And they feel like, wait a minute, I can't take it with me. Maybe I can put my brain in another body. Maybe I can create a digital version of myself.
There's all kinds of schemes that they're doing. But mostly they have to deal with what Elon Musk once called the meat sack. You have a meat sack
you're carrying around with you. And so, what do you do with that meat sack?
At the same time, there's -- Christiane, there's so much amazing stuff happening with the help of technology like A.I. in terms of gene issues
around drug discovery, around cancer. mRNA technology is astonishing. Of course, it's been politicized in the United States. GLP-1s. All this stuff
is happening. At the same time, so much misinformation and nonsense is out there. And so, I wanted to sort of break that apart so you understand
what's working and what isn't.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm going to play another clip because this is, you know, essentially you defining the good life. You point out that tech
billionaires are desperate to hang on. But they almost never talk about the quality of life. So, this is what you're discussing. You know, what engages
the brain when you're speaking to neuroscientist Wendy Suzuki.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SWISHER: You study this. Talk about this. You're a neuroscientist.
WENDY SUZUKI, PHD, PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR NEUROSCIENCE: So, I study brain plasticity. How the brain can learn and grow from
particular kinds of activities. I study exercise. But we know that learning and play is really, really good for the brain. It's strategy. It's that
interaction. It's creativity.
One of my specialties is a brain structure called the hippocampus. It's in the temporal lobe. You have one on the right and one on the left. It's
really important for memory. So, you need it to remember what you put down, you know, in Texas Hold'em. It's also important for imagination.
If you're trying to get something going in your game strategy, you need that imagination to envision what that strategy might be.
SWISHER (voice-over): Games boost your brain. But the real win, you usually can't play alone. And it turns out interacting with actual humans,
messy, opinionated, rule-bending humans, is what fights loneliness and helps you live longer.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And for me, that was the bingo moment. It is all about community and in real life. And I wonder what you also learned, because you touched
on this issue with Gen Z's, and whether they have a different view of the boundary between, you know, life and death and longevity.
SWISHER (on camera): Well, you know, what's interesting is this was all young people in a basement in Brooklyn in this food hall. And what's really
interesting is young people are pushing away. One of the contrasts I wanted to put is between online and offline worlds, right? Online, with the
chatbots and the chat relationships, is very deleterious to longevity, because it's seamless, Christiane. And friction is what creates much more
cognitive health, which is part of living longer, right? And everything else.
And so, one of the things that's really astonishing, people ask me, what are the big secrets, Kara? What are the big secrets? And you can go into
mRNA technology and GLP-1s, absolutely, and A.I. and cancer, et cetera.
But the number -- two things that are critically important to longevity, don't be poor. I hate to say that, but it's true. Be rich, that helps. The
most important thing is social and human connections. There's all this science behind that. And it's really astonishing how much the online world,
and we've become extremely online, is going to hurt us, and how helpful it is to be with people. It's actually health-improving.
And so, it's a very simple answer, and it doesn't cost anything. And you don't have to pay like for a red-light mask or whatever nonsense they're
trying to push on you. And that, to me, was the most important insight here, is if you spend time with more people over your life, you will live
longer and more healthfully.
AMANPOUR: I agree with you.
SWISHER: So, have dinner with me.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. I totally agree with you. But you did test all of the -- well, not all of this stuff, but quite a lot of stuff. We've got you in
a hyperbaric chamber. You did some ketamine. You've done, you know, this kind of stuff. Anyway, here's this clip.
SWISHER: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SWISHER: Hello, Amy. Thanks for dragging me into this. So, you did all these things, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I've done all these things, yes. But this is like a sort of Rolls Royce.
SWISHER: Of hyperbaric chamber?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, this is nice.
SWISHER: Because I'm a classy dame. But go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, exactly.
[13:35:00]
SWISHER: How do they measure something like this? Just, I feel OK, or I feel --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How are you feeling? You feeling better?
SWISHER: I feel the same.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you feel smarter? Because we were out there, and they were like, I feel so much sharper when I go in there. Are you feeling
sharper? Your answers, are they getting like -- \
SWISHER: I think I'm sharp all the time, Amy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I think you failed her test.
SWISHER: Yes, it's not. Do not go in a hyperbaric chamber, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: I'm not.
SWISHER: It doesn't help.
AMANPOUR: Don't take ketamine. Yes.
SWISHER: It's not necessary. If you have the bends or have a wound, go for it. Otherwise, it's another thing they're trying to sell you, your health.
That's what they're trying to do, and this does not help you. It just doesn't.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you because --
SWISHER: I know people insist it does.
AMANPOUR: -- I can't let you go without asking, you know, some of your news knowledge here. Musk versus Altman, they're in court right now.
SWISHER: Sure.
AMANPOUR: How is this going to turn out? What do you think?
SWISHER: Speaking of bad health, I think it's bad for both of them. I don't think it's good for either company. In this case, right now, Elon's
been on the stand, and he's been sort of soiling himself rather nicely over there. Because anytime he gets pushback, because he's in this world,
speaking of worlds that are insular, he's not used to being pushed on. What happened is he was an early funder of this, the most significant funder,
and then he left because he couldn't take control of it.
And now, he has -- you know, it's the biggest regret of his life, because he didn't think they could do what Sam Altman did with it.
AMANPOUR: OK.
SWISHER: So, he's trying to pretend he's the hero and everything else. And it's not good for either company, and it's very bad for the brand of A.I.,
I'll tell you that, which is already on a downward slope, a very fast- moving downward slope.
AMANPOUR: And one other last question, because it's a big deal too, the idea of A.I. and the Pentagon. Bloomberg is reporting the White House is
drafting an A.I. policy memo outlining requirements for A.I. deployment by national security agencies. Tell me what you know about that, of course,
after Anthropic refused to allow the DoD to use its mass surveillance and autonomous weapons.
SWISHER: It depends on what's in there. It might be a win for Anthropic. Anthropic is correct in that way. And I'm worried about this group of
people doing this, because it's chock full of Silicon Valley people on the make in those positions. And so, therefore, it will be focused in on
helping Silicon Valley companies, and it has nothing to do with national security. It's about dominating A.I., whatever private company.
And government is just seen as an advantage, and Donald Trump is the willing dupe, the coin-operated president who's going to let them do it.
AMANPOUR: Well, you keep the tech bros honest. Keep on doing it. Kara Swisher, thank you very much, and for this program.
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, with negotiations to end the war in Iran stalled, the United States has yet to give an entirely clear rationale for starting it
in the first place, much less an exit strategy. Well, our next guest argues that the Trump administration is invoking Christian scripture as a moral
justification for this war. It's a topic Peter Wehner explores in depth in two recent columns for The Atlantic, where he's a contributing writer. And
he's joining Michel Martin to discuss what this all means for politics and for religion.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Peter Wehner, thank you so much for joining us.
PETER WEHNER, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: It's delightful to be with you. Thanks for having me on.
[13:40:00]
MARTIN: So, people who followed your writing know that you have spent years writing about faith, politics, and power in two recent pieces in The
Atlantic. You're really wrestling with what happens when religion is used either to justify war or to restrain it.
So, as we look at the Iran War right now, what are some of the central moral questions that you think need to be wrestled with?
WEHNER: Well, I think the central moral question is whether the war is legitimate on moral grounds, and that's a real debate to be had. That's
true of any war, and you have to take into account facts and circumstances. I think what troubles me in this present moment is, one, I would say is
that President Trump and his team have not made any argument, really, for going to war, let alone a moral argument for going to war.
But beyond that, it's the invocation, particularly by Secretary of Defense Hegseth, but not only by him, to use the Bible to validate this war and to
essentially cast the war as a spiritual and religious struggle. And I think they were wrong to do that. I think it's destructive to the larger debate
that we're having, and I think it's also destructive to the Christian faith, which Hegseth proclaims.
MARTIN: At a Pentagon worship service on March 25th, Secretary Hegseth reportedly prayed for violence against those who deserve no mercy, his
words, and some military reporting around that period said commanders were telling troops that the war was part of God's plan and that Trump had been
anointed by Jesus to trigger Armageddon. At the same time, President Trump told Iranians to take over your government and help is on the way.
So, when you put those two statements together, what do they say about how the war is being framed?
WEHNER: Yes, I think what it says is that the war is being framed as a holy war, as a religious war. And that's the wrong frame. I don't think the
application, in fact, I'm quite certain that application that they're using these biblical texts to justify what's essentially a merciless war, a war
of total destruction. We heard from the president in one of his tweets several weeks ago, a threat to destroy the entire civilization.
There is a tradition, it's called the just war tradition within Christianity about whether one should go, whether a country should go to
war. And if you do go to war, what are the parameters of that war? How do you prosecute a war justly? Now, that's not easy because war by its very
nature involves a lot of complicated moral questions and doing things that you might otherwise not do. But you still have to have constraints that
keep you from acting in ways that are barbarous.
And what we're seeing from the administration is not only no reference or engagement with a just war theory, it's actually turning it upside down.
And it's the argument that they're making is that the just war theory doesn't matter and morality doesn't matter. We're going to war. We're on
the side of God. And we can do cart launch.
We can do anything we want in the name of God to win this war. And that can lead to not only a lot of terrible human destruction and necessary human
destruction, but it can weaken the moral stature of the United States to do this kind of thing. And I think it's a defamation of the Christian faith
and the name of Jesus. And I'm a person of the Christian faith, so that troubles me too.
MARTIN: In your April 13th piece for The Atlantic, it's titled "Hegseth's Unholy War." You write that the defense secretary seems less interested in
being on the side of God than on insisting that God is on his side. And in the same piece, you argue that Hegseth's language isn't just political
spin, but something deeper than that.
At a Pentagon press briefing on April 16, 2026, Hegseth dismissed negative coverage for moral criticism as incredibly unpatriotic and an endless
stream of garbage, compared the press to the biblical Pharisees, and said it's often hard to figure out what side some of you are actually on.
A couple questions I have about that is where does his worldview come from in your reporting? I think he has reached for faith to try and put meaning
into his life. It's no secret that he's had something of a desolate life.
WEHNER: And I think he's gone to faith to try and bring it together. Now, a lot of people do that. I think in this case with Hegseth, a couple of
things are going on. One is that he's to try and bring it together. Now, a lot of people do that. I think in this case with Hegseth, a couple of
things are going on.
[13:45:00]
One is that he's found himself under the influence of a pastor named Doug Wilson, who is with a reformed tradition that's within the Protestant
world, that I think deeply misunderstands Christianity and corrupts and distorts the scriptural teaching. So, I think that's one thing that's going
on with Hegseth.
The other thing that's happening with him, and this is not specific only to him, it's a temptation that I think all people of faith have, but I think
it's particularly pronounced in his case, and that is you take preexisting sentiments, reflexes, sensibilities, core identities, and you proof text
the Bible to validate what you already believe.
So, the Bible and faith becomes almost a hood ornament. It's secondary to other things. And in this case, I think it's secondary to Pete Hegseth's
psychological profile, his ideology, the dogmatisms that he's a part of, the world he's a part of, which is the MAGA world.
That is really what he is going to do, that's what he's going to act, and he wants to validate that. And he validates it by invoking, in the case of
some of these services that he's held at the Pentagon, by invoking the Bible and the name of God to justify and ratify what he wants to do. The
trouble is that what he's trying to do, which is to get the Bible to validate his approach, actually has nothing to do with the Bible or what
God wants.
MARTIN: In your latest piece, you describe Pope Leo, the first American- born Pope, as someone who is unwilling to subordinate his faith to politics or to adjust his commitment to the gospel in exchange for access to power.
I can't think of a time when there was an exchange like this between an American president and a Pope. Just as briefly as you can, walk us through
what happened here for people who haven't followed it.
WEHNER: Yes, Pope Leo, American Pope, born in Chicago, he's had some statements over the last several months that has taken issue with some
elements of, I would say, the Trumpian approach, mass deportation, the use of Jesus that Trump has done in some of his social media treats, but
especially on the Iran war. And he's expressed objections to it. He's Pope. The Catholic Church traditionally speaks out on behalf of peace.
The fact that a Pope would speak out against the actions of a country or president is not unusual. It's happened before. I think what's different
about this is that Donald Trump, in responding to Pope Leo, does what he always does, which is the personalization of it and the way in which he's
so aggressively going after Pope Leo.
What struck me --
MARTIN: He called him -- just to clarify for people, again, he called him weak on crime. He says that the Pope doesn't mind if Iran has a bomb. He's
saying he doesn't know anything about war. He doesn't know anything about foreign policy. He's weak on foreign policy, et cetera.
And I just want to -- if you could frame for us just how remarkable this is, because a lot of people just find it shocking.
WEHNER: And people are right to be shocked. And it's unprecedented. It really has never happened. Again, presidents and popes have had differences
over time, but it's always been respectful differences. It's also politically stupid, I should add. And he's -- Trump is taking on, you know,
the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide, and a lot of Catholics within the United States.
I will say that one of the things that -- well, several things struck me about the fact that Pope Leo spoke out. One is what you alluded to, which
is, here is an example of a person of the Christian faith who's not subordinating the gospel to being close to power. He has no interest in
being close to power, cozying up to power. He has no career ambitions that he's after. So, that, I think, is notable.
The other thing that was notable to me, it was like, I don't know, an archetypal sort of conflict. One was the fact that you have men who are
just polar opposites. One who is a person of deep religious faith, whose entire interior life has been shaped by spiritual disciplines, is a man of,
by all accounts, calmness and kindness, part of the Augustinian tradition of contemplation and action, and a preferential treatment for the poor, to
use a Catholic phrase. So, that's on the one hand.
And on the other hand, you have Donald Trump, who's a man who's completely and thoroughly secular, who views life as a series of conquests, sexual
conquests, financial conquests, conquests in the realm of power, who has no institutional ties to any church, who himself has said that he doesn't
think he needs to ask for requests, conquests in the realm of power, who has no institutional ties to any church, who himself has said that he
doesn't think he needs to ask forgiveness for God for anything. So, you've got that conflict.
[13:50:00]
But beyond that, what struck me is not only this Pope Leo standing up to Donald Trump, but he's in a sense transcending Donald Trump. You mentioned
that attack on the Pope saying he was weak on crime. Even by Trumpian standards, that's a ludicrous attack. What is that supposed to mean? I
think what it means is that Donald Trump doesn't know how to attack this Pope in a way that's meaningful.
MARTIN: What about J.D. Vance, the vice president, who converted to Catholicism in 2019?
WEHNER: Yes.
MARTIN: He said -- and this was at a Turning Point USA event, that's that campus-oriented movement to inculcate conservative principles, mainly
focused on college kids. This was on April 14, and the vice president said the Pope should, quote/unquote, "be careful when he talks about matters of
theology." He says the Vatican should stick to questions of morality. He says "When the Pope says that God is never on the side of those who wield
the sword, there is more than a thousand-year tradition of just war theory," end quote. So, what do you make of the vice president's response
to this?
WEHNER: Yes, look, I think it's reasonable to say that the Pope should be careful in invoking his theology, but I think it's also fair to say that
J.D. Vance should be careful about invoking theology on his part as well. As I mentioned earlier, there's a real debate to be had about wars and the
role of faith and whether a war qualifies as a just war or not.
I think the trouble with Vice President Vance is not the critique that you read from as it relates to the Pope. Those are fair questions to ask. I
think the trouble with J.D. Vance, apart from the fact that he's a recent convert to Catholicism, is that his life has shown itself to be one that
abuses faith in order to pursue power and to promote Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda. So, in some sense, I think he's almost disqualified himself
from the start from this debate.
MARTIN: So, before I let you go, I wanted to kind of loop back to where we started our conversation, which is to say there are many people who've told
me, well, I voted for him because of abortion, and there's really no other choice, or there are people who say, well, I may not like the way he talks
about people, but he's promoting the things that I care about. I believe in a strong traditional family structure.
So, how would you want people, particularly people who have that point of view, to think about this, to think about the current moment?
WEHNER: The first thing I would say is, if you think Donald Trump's agenda is promoting the things that you care most about, whether it's abortion or
the courts, let's set aside the fact that I think in many respects he's not. But let's assume for the sake of the argument he is.
You can do two things at once. You can praise him for what you think his policy achievements are, and you can call him out for rank immorality and
corruption and unethical behavior. The problem for an awful lot of evangelicals and fundamentalists shell is that they have not done that.
They have tossed their head over that wall, and they have championed him and defended him at every single point along this ugly path. And you don't
need to do that. You don't need to give up your independence of judgment or your moral independence for a political leader.
And the last thing I would say is that if what is being produced, and here I'm speaking to Christians, if what's being produced is an ethic that's
antithetical to the ethic of Jesus, then you ought to ask yourself a second and a third time, am I on the right path, and am I supporting the right
cause, and I'm supporting the right person? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear, and I think only somebody with a deep vested
interest in the outcome can come away and say Donald Trump and his administration over these last 10 years is the personification of a
Christian ethic.
He's the opposite of that, and people who value their faith should speak up more often than they do for the sake of a country they love and for the
sake of the faith that they love.
MARTIN: Peter Wehner, thank you so much for talking with me.
WEHNER: Thanks, I enjoyed it very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, team spirit is taking on a whole new meaning for Afghanistan's female soccer players. This week FIFA committed
to recognizing their squad as the Afghan national team, and the timing couldn't be more significant as the Taliban continues to crack down on
women's rights, including banning them from playing sports for the dozens of players. And the timing couldn't be more significant as the Taliban
continues to crack down on women's rights, including banning them from playing sports. For the dozens of players who live in exile, the move is a
practical and emotional game changer.
[13:55:00]
Here's what the team's vice captain had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FATIMA YOUSUFI, VICE CAPTAIN, AFGHAN WOMEN UNITED FOOTBALL TEAM: You know, it means everything. It's the results of years of struggle and sacrifices,
and it means the results of not giving up. For me, it's not just about football, it's about being seen, being heard, and finally being recognized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Never give up indeed. It is the end of a long journey to represent their country as they previously played under a refugee banner,
and we'll all be wishing them luck, I'm sure, for their next game.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
