Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Middle East Braces For Israel's Response To Iran; Israel Goes To War Against Hezbollah; Interview With Author Bernard-Henri Levy; Interview With Author Ta-Nehisi Coates. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired October 06, 2024 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:48]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the global public square.

Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you live.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA (voice-over): Today on the program:

As the world waits to see if the Middle East crisis becomes even further inflamed, I'll talk to a former top Israeli intelligence official whose area of expertise is Iran, and a longtime foreign correspondent who joins us live from the bombarded city of Beirut.

Then, we'll focus in on the country at the heart of this conflict, Israel. We'll bring you two very different views on it from two important thinkers, Bernard-Henri Levy, Ta-Nehisi Coates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: But first, here's my take. Israel's recent campaign against Hezbollah will go down as one of the most brilliant tactical successes in warfare, a triumph of great intelligence and military execution. But it also highlights a trend that the surprise attack of October 7th might have obscured.

Israel is now the most powerful military actor in the Middle East, the region's superpower.

Twelve years ago, I pointed out that the decades old balance of power in the Middle East had been upended. The Jewish state used to be David, up against the region's goliaths, Syria, Iraq and Egypt. But all those three countries are now shadows of their former selves. Bashar al-Assad rules over a battered rump Syria, Iraq is dysfunctional, internally divided and mired in corruption. Egypt is in slow motion economic collapse under the tight control of a dictator who jails Islamic militants and is probably delighted to see Israel take the battle to them.

In 2010, in a comprehensive examination, the Arab-Israeli military balance, Anthony Cordesman and Aram Nerguizian detailed how Israel had leaped ahead of its neighbors on virtually every dimension of effective military strength. In 2014, "Business Insider" asked experts to help rank the region's military powers and concluded that tiny Israel was the clear number one.

Over the last decade, the gap has enlarged as Israel has continued to boom economically and as America's billions of dollars of military aid have added up.

Consider the difference between Israel and Iran. Iran has almost 10 times the population of Israel, a larger active duty army and more battle tanks and other equipment. But Israel's military budget last year was more than double that of Iran, and that doesn't take into account Israel's huge qualitative edge. While Iran has almost 40,000 soldiers in its air force, Reuters reports that it has just a few dozen working strike aircraft, many of them aging American planes or Russian equipment that is decidedly second rate. Meanwhile, Israel has hundreds of the most advanced western fighter jets manned by a highly trained and well-equipped air force.

A few months ago, Iran's president and foreign minister died in an accident while riding an old Vietnam War era American Bell helicopter, a model for which they lacked spare parts and proper maintenance. If that's the state of military hardware being used for the country's president, imagine what the average Iranian soldier is using.

Israel's strategic environment has also been transformed where once the most powerful Arab states were its enemies, today they are its friends. "Business Insider" ranks as number three and number four on its list of military powers, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, de facto allies of Israel. And, of course, Israel is the only country in the Middle East with a powerful nuclear force, some weapons reportedly housed in submarines, which gives it maximum effectiveness as a deterrent.

[10:05:03]

You might not have been as aware of these realities because for the last two decades, Benjamin Netanyahu has been on a campaign to portray Iran as 20 feet tall which, of course, then requires Israel to adopt hard-line policies on all fronts. In speeches, press conferences and interviews, he has been relentless on the mortal threat that Iran poses to Israel, one that has in his view been growing every year. In fact, his obsession with Iran might have lulled Israel into taking its eye off the threat posed by Hamas.

Beyond Netanyahu, many in the Israeli government believed that Hezbollah was a fearsome adversary one they tangled with for years and that could claim to have driven Israel out of Lebanon in the past. But the reality is that like Iran, Hezbollah has also been weakened by decades of sanctions and some members have surely fallen prey to corruption. While we don't know the details in this case usually a foreign intelligence service can penetrate an organization only when its members have lost faith in their mission and can be easily bribed. The lesson here is one that Americans have also needed to learn over the decades the enemy is rarely as strong as you fear.

As with the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, America's adversaries had significant weaknesses that Washington missed. Iran today is a country that has lived for more than four decades under crippling sanctions and a dysfunctional regime. And while it could lash out if it felt it had no option or face regime annihilation, it is no match for Israel.

The danger for Israel is the same as for the United States in recent decades, its military superiority can lead to stunning tactical victories. America toppled the Taliban in mere months in 2001, and it took just weeks to get to Baghdad and take the Iraqi capital. But those brilliant tactical wins ended up becoming strategic losses because the United States got mired in slow grinding occupations.

It's a parallel that Israel should be thinking about as it enters its second year in Gaza and begins to invade Lebanon.

And let's get started.

(MUSIC)

ZAKARIA: For the second time this year, Iran retaliated against Israel for high level assassinations. On Tuesday, the Islamic republic launched around ballistic missiles at targets across Israel. Israel shot down most of them with the help of the U.S. and others, but some got through. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that Iran will pay.

So how might Israel retaliate against Iran?

Joining me is Danny Citrinowicz. He served in Israel's military intelligence as head of the Iranian strategic branch. He's now a fellow of the Atlantic Council.

Danny, welcome.

Tell us -- explain to us Iran did this once before April 14th, and the Israeli response was quite measured in response to Iran's hundreds of rockets Israel basically took out a crucial but I think a single radar. Why is -- why does Prime Minister Netanyahu seem to be signaling this one is going to be this Israeli response is going to be much bigger?

DANNY CITRINOWICZ, RESEARCH FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES: Well, first, greeting from sunny Tel Aviv.

Well, when you're looking at the 14th of April attack, we need to remember the constraints that Israel had when he wanted to retaliate against Iran. We had American administration that pushing hard on Israel to contain its retaliation but also we had Hezbollah as a tool, as a measure that Iran could use in order to threaten Israel.

Before what happened the last couple of weeks, Hezbollah was fearsome enemy to the state of Israel, with capabilities to actually inflict a severe damage to the strategic sites of Israel. So in that regard those constraints were in the April 14th attack that led to very symbolic response by Israel.

But unfortunately, right now, unfortunately, for the Iranians, there are no constraints anymore and I think that's really raising the chances that Israel will retaliate, retaliate hard with dramatically significantly against Iran.

ZAKARIA: So you said there the two constraints were the fear of Hezbollah as the kind of loaded gun of Iran and the second was pressure from the American administration not to escalate.

Why do you feel the pressure from the American administration has -- has either died out or become ineffective?

[10:10:01]

CITRINOWICZ: Well, I think for the first time, it was easy to say to the Israeli government responsibility and nothing else will happen. And then we got struck again by the Iranians.

So, obviously, second time Israel has to do something differently. But I think also, it also connected to the American politics and the fact that the administration a couple of weeks before the election cannot be seen as someone -- that perceived as someone that pressuring Israel not to defend itself. I think what the administration trying to do now is pressuring Israel not -- of course, it's not able to pressure not to retaliate, but be make -- trying to make some sort of adjustment to the targets.

The American administration is worried, afraid that things will escalate into a regional war. This is why they're pressing Israel to pick targets that will enable them in the future to contain the Iranian retaliation and thus preventing a regional escalation. I don't know if it's whether -- they're going to succeed in doing so, but for sure, there are debates, discussion between Israel and the U.S. in that regard, and we have to wait to be seen what will happen next couple of days and what Israel will choose eventually.

ZAKARIA: If you had to guess, Danny, there's been talk about nuclear sites, oil refineries and installations and other military targets.

What do you think the attack will be focused on?

CITRINOWICZ: Well, it's really connected to what Israel want to achieve. Before we think about the targets, I want to think what Israel want to achieve. I'm sure that Israel doesn't want to find itself in a war of attrition with Iran and we have the Lebanese arena and we have the Gaza arena to focus on, and I don't think that we want to open another arena with Iran but we have to retaliate.

This is why I think we have to pick targets that will enable the Iranians to contain their response. So, obviously, going for the oil refineries or even go for the nuclear side, this is something that would pressure the Iranian regime to retaliate but also they would think to cross the Rubicon in term of the nuclear capabilities.

So I thinking that regard, maybe the military sites, the military targets -- targets will enable Iran to contain that in the future. But again, it's all connected what the Israeli government want to achieve from the future attack against Iran. ZAKARIA: And, Danny, this would have to result in an Iranian

retaliation, right? You're an Iran expert. They -- they presumably have to particular because now, they don't have the option of asking Hezbollah to respond. They are going to have to increasingly get involved directly.

CITRINOWICZ: Definitely, they're threatening that, and I think that the chances are they going to retaliate. This is why we are standing in front of a real escalation, regional one, between Israel and Iran, that's for sure. Unlike the 14th of April, I think now the chances are higher in that regard and I think it's also connected to the fact for like you said, the Iranians feel they need to retaliate because of the situation of Hezbollah. Remember that Hezbollah was the cushion, was the real protector of Iran, the element that really deterred Israel not to attack Iran.

Now, without Hezbollah, or with Hezbollah diminishing in a way because of the Israeli attack against it, Iran has to take a step forward, using its missile capabilities but also I suspect they will have to do something in terms of the nuclear strategy because they really want to fortify the deterrence with other proxies. And, of course, it remain to be seen, but I'm afraid that if Israel will retaliates significantly, higher chances that Iran will retaliate as well to balance the equation between it and Israel.

ZAKARIA: Danny, that was incredibly insightful. Thank you so much for helping us think -- think this through.

Next on GPS, Israel bombarded Beirut again last night, as its ground invasion continues in southern Lebanon. What is Hezbollah's capacity to fight back? We'll discuss with Kim Ghattas in Beirut when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:23]

ZAKARIA: Beirut was bombarded last night by heavy Israeli airstrikes. In addition to its strikes from the air, Israel also invaded southern Lebanon on Monday. Israeli officials say the move into Lebanon will be limited and there will be no long-term occupation.

Joining me now from Beirut to discuss all of this is the longtime foreign correspondent Kim Ghattas. She's a contributing writer at "The Atlantic".

Welcome, Kim.

First tell us, what is it like? You live in Beirut but not in a part area considered a Hezbollah stronghold. Are you safe?

KIM GHATTAS, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Good to be with you, Fareed.

I have to say it was a very heavy night of shelling. It was quite hellish. I live just a minute drive away from the southern suburbs which is actually a quite diverse neighborhood as well. I know it's often referred to as a Hezbollah stronghold, and it does have a lot of Hezbollah infrastructure and offices, but it also has a variety of people living there who also are now in the crossfire. And you can hear these very loud explosions almost across Beirut. The ground shook at one point.

And you know, Israel is framing this as a war against Hezbollah, but I must say that the Lebanese feel targeted themselves as well and they feel that they're being punished for choices that Hezbollah made which they did not approve of.

And so, these are very difficult tense days for the Lebanese because although Hezbollah has many opponents, I would say a solid majority of Lebanese oppose Hezbollah.

[10:20:00]

The Lebanese are also very worried about what Israel intentions are in Lebanon because they've watched Gaza for the last 11 months.

ZAKARIA: You wrote something, Kim, that I thought was very fascinating in helping us understand the Israeli success against Hezbollah. You pointed out that Hezbollah used to be this very tight secretive organization, but when it got involved in the Syrian civil war, all that changed.

Explain what you mean.

GHATTAS: Yes, I want to start by pointing out also, Fareed, that what Israel is trying to do today is destroy a problem that it helped create when it invaded in 1982. It was in the wake of that invasion that Hezbollah was born.

And even though that invasion at the time was seen as a tactical success as you pointed out yourself in your introduction, in your take of the week, it turned out into a strategic failure because precisely it led to the rise of Hezbollah which used to be a guerilla movement, seen by many as a resistance movement against Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. But over time, the group grew corrupt, grew fat, grew bigger, grew into a more traditional part of the Lebanese establishment, and got involved on the side of President Bashar al- Assad in his war in Syria.

And so, they were gone from the underground and into a much more regular army style operation which exposed them to surveillance, exposed them to corruption and exposed them to the hatred of many Sunnis, but others also in Lebanon, in Syria, and in the rest of the Arab world for the terrible role that they played in this very bloody civil war. And I think that has been their downfall and that's what led to such penetration by intelligence, signal intelligence, but also human intelligence.

ZAKARIA: Kim, what about -- what happens now? Israel seems to be saying, they haven't clearly said, but they're saying their goal is to defeat Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is not just a militant organization, terrorist organization. It also is a political and social organization within Lebanon and it represents the Shia who are the majority in Lebanon.

Can you really defeat Hezbollah in that sense?

GHATTAS: I think history has shown that you cannot defeat guerilla groups, armed movements without presenting a better idea, political idea, similarly for Hamas and the same in Lebanon.

It may be a -- it may be possible to put them on the back foot, to decapitate them, degrade them. I'm worried that they will go underground as they did during the '80s to fight Israel as it tries to take some territory or some incursions into southern Lebanon. As for the Lebanese political scene, as I said they have many political opponents there is a sense here that this is a moment to come together and we'll have to see whether the Lebanese political establishment and the opposition can manage that to show national unity which is not necessarily to the exclusion of Hezbollah, and certainly not to the exclusion of the Shia community with which is a large minority, not a -- not a majority but a large minority.

And they feel, whatever we think of Hezbollah, or Nasrallah, they feel -- many of them feel now leaderless and defenseless, and they have to be made to be included into Lebanon's future and protected by the state. So we've heard many statements from Washington about whether this is an opportunity to strengthen the Lebanese state at the expense of Hezbollah. I think we really need to frame it positively that this is a moment to strengthen the state for the sake of Lebanon.

And just to emphasize also that none of this political discussion none of these political movements, diplomacy national unity can really develop under what is a very heavy Israeli military campaign, not only because that does not lead to conducive -- that is not conducive to real political discussions and progress, but also because nobody in Lebanon or in the region wants to be seen as to seize the opportunity of an Israeli invasion or an Israeli military campaign, nobody wants to be seen to be profiting from that, even though as I said people have very mixed feelings about -- about Hezbollah, but they are also very worried about Israel's intentions in Lebanon.

I want to quote the Israeli author and peace activist Amos Oz who in 1982 wrote after that invasion, we can never atone for what we did in Beirut. And I'm really worried that we're seeing that film of 1982 repeat. As you said, Fareed, tactical successes but strategic failures. And for the sake of Lebanon, we need national unity, we need de-escalation if not a ceasefire, and we need to give the ability for the Lebanese to come together and for this country to come out of this intact.

[10:25:10]

ZAKARIA: Thank you, Kim Ghattas. Really terrific insights.

Next, Bernard-Henri Levy on one year after October 7th.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: On October 8, 2023, Bernard-Henry Levy went to Israel to bear witness to the immediate aftermath of Hamas's brutal attacks. The French philosopher and writer has been a proud and outspoken Zionist for years.

[10:30:03]

But the atrocities he saw in the wake of October 7th moved him to write his first book on Israel, "Israel Alone." He joins me now.

Bernard-Henri Levy, welcome as always. Tell us, what do you think looking at this year after October 7th? For you, what is the big lesson?

BERNARD-HENRI LEVY, AUTHOR, "ISRAEL ALONE": The main lesson after one year alas, Fareed, is that Israel is alone. Alone to mourn and to grieve. Alone to fight and alone to win.

When you Americans did retaliate against September 11 there was a great coalition around you. When we French did retaliate after Bataclan, after Charlie Hebdo, in Mosul, and in Raqqa, there was great coalition around us to support.

Around Israel, there is no coalition. There are allies like France or America, who blackmail, who warn, who ask for compromise for whatever. There is not a real coalition. There is solitude of Israel. This is after one year alas the bitter lesson which are retained from the whole sequence.

ZAKARIA: You know, Bernard-Henri, that people say that the reason the United States or France has put pressure on Israel is that they feel that Israel's goal, say the complete destruction of Hamas or Hezbollah, is unrealistic, and more importantly can only be achieved at great cost to the civilian populations in Gaza and southern Lebanon which will produce more terrorists than it kills. Is that a fair way to think about it?

LEVY: My dear, Fareed, I have the privilege of age, the dark privilege of age. I covered a lot of wars. I covered a lot.

I was in many battlefields in my life. I was in Somalia. I was in Afghanistan. I was in many places. I never saw an army doing as much, trying as much as the Israeli army in order to avoid too many casualties. This is the reality of the battlefield.

We French in Mosul we did not take so many precautions. You Americans in Kabul and in Mazar-i-Sharif in 2001, the same. Today, Israel takes precautions which I never saw any other army in the world involved in such a -- such a war taking. This the true reality.

Now, of course, too many casualties. Of course, it is heartbreaking. Of course, every day when I wake up, when I look at my phone the news from Gaza and from the civilian casualties, I am depressed. But you must know that IDF called for evaluation -- for evacuation, warnings. Did you see any army warning before striking? Even on the strategical or tactical -- tactical point of view, its nearly absurd but then they do that. They alert. They warn. They announce the strike few hours, sometimes few days before in order to permit as many civilians as possible to quit. And the Hamas in Gaza and the Hezbollah in Lebanon prevent.

ZAKARIA: What do you say, Bernard-Henri, to those who say, well, the backdrop in Gaza is that the -- Israel has been occupying the Palestinian people, occupying these lands in the West Bank. And of course, Gaza is more complicated but still Israel has control for 56 years. And you can't -- you can't forget that context.

LEVY: The story of context is one of the biggest (EXPLETIVE DELETED) I heard since long. There is no context for what happened in October 7. This extent of savagery, of cruelty, women raped and killed at the same time, families -- entire families taken like cattle, like preys, like in antique Roma. There is no context explaining that. No context, number one.

[10:35:00]

Number two, you can say what -- you can think whatever you want about what happens in the West Bank. Nothing to do with -- nothing comparable to Gaza. Gaza was not occupied since 50 years. There was not even a synagogue in Gaza.

The blockade by the Israelis of Gaza was for military devices or devices allowing to make military weapons. So, no occupation. All that is excuse of crime.

ZAKARIA: Bernard-Henri Levy, always a pleasure to hear from you. The book is "Israel Alone." And I should point out that Bernard-Henri Levy will be on a campus tour in the United States to talk to young students because of what he worries about, which is a rising tide of antisemitism in the United States. So, please get the book and watch for his campus tour.

Next up, we have a different take on Israel from an important American thinker, Ta-Nehisi Coates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:50]

ZAKARIA: We just brought you the perspective of a passionate supporter of Israel. Now, I want to bring you another perspective, a no less passionate critique of the same country. It's from the writer Ta- Nehisi Coates, who usually trains his eye and his pen on the challenges facing America.

But in a new book called "The Message," Coates writes about his visit last made to Israel and the West Bank, and all that he saw there.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Ta-Nehisi Coates, thank you so much for joining us.

TA-NEHISI COATES, AUTHOR, "THE MESSAGE": Thanks for having me, Fareed. ZAKARIA: So, when you get to the West Bank, when you went to Israel, let's talk about it first in those terms, you sort of approached this whole book and that process as a writer exploring, but you must have had preconceptions. You must have had thoughts.

When you went there were they confirmed, were they disconfirmed? How did that -- how did you feel when you got there?

COATES: Yes, that's a great question, Fareed, and it's something I write about in the book a little bit. I had like a kind of vague -- you know, vague notions. You know, probably where I sit on the political spectrum, there are people who are deeply skeptical, you know, of Zionism as a project. So, that was there. But as a writer, I really, really try to avoid getting into a position where I am taking strong public stances on things that I have not seen firsthand.

Unfortunately, what I saw confirmed the skepticism. In fact, I would say deepened it and made it significantly worse. I write about in the book, I am the child of parents born into Jim Crow, a system in which we had one group of people who are given one class of citizenship and another group of people who are not.

During my travels in Israel and on the West Bank, I saw a level of citizenship for Jewish Israelis. And then I saw something lesser in various tiers for everybody else. I would include Palestinian citizens of Israel also in that.

And I was forced to wonder, how a country that takes the civil rights movement so seriously could be implicated in such a project? That was very disturbing. It was very disturbing.

ZAKARIA: You say that you saw more racism in Israel than any way you've seen. There's a line in your book that is something to that effect.

COATES: Yes. Well, I said that I never saw it burned so strange and so hot.

ZAKARIA: Exactly.

COATES: Strange because I was not the subject of it. I for the first time in my life probably I was the observer and kind of outside of it.

You know, I think about a story, you know, I tell quite often, my visit to the city of Hebron, and being with somebody whose parents and grandparents have been born into a city and yet they could not walk down the street with the freedom that I could.

I think about being all over the West Bank. And if I had the taxi with the right color, license plate, I pretty much had freedom to move. And yet people whose ancestors had been there for hundreds of years did not. You know, I think about the justice system and the fact of meeting with people who were living under a military justice system where only a mile or so away was a settlement that was ruled by the civil justice system of Israel. I don't know how we, as Americans, with all of our emphasis on democracy, our freedom, I don't know how we look past a society that erects a structure like this, where the segregation is so clear and so obvious. I am baffled as to why we are OK with that.

ZAKARIA: A lot of people would say -- and Israel would say, look, we are flawed, but we are democracy. We do have -- we do have courts. We do have -- we have -- you know, it's often said it's the only democracy in the Middle East. When you go there and you -- what's your reaction to that kind of -- that argument?

COATES: Well, I will say that I am skeptical because I'm probably somebody who would argue that America itself did not really have a democracy until the 1960s. When you have the entire solid south that is basically ruled by ignoring one-third of its population and wiping them, I just don't know how you call that a democracy. And so, I would say the same thing about Israel.

[10:45:02]

This is a situation where Israel has ruled over the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 and this people have no real say in their ultimate governance. I don't know how you call yourself a democracy, you know, in a situation like that.

ZAKARIA: So, when you look at it, do you think -- do you use the analogy -- Jim Crow? Is it apartheid? How do you think about what it?

COATES: What I saw struck me as Jim Crow, that was the first thing that occurred. And then I got back and I know I was writing this and I had to do the research.

And I read the report from "Amnesty International" charging apartheid. I read the report from "Human Rights Watch" charging apartheid. I read the report from B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group charging apartheid. Al-Haq charging apartheid, the Palestinian human rights organization. And then I read the words of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, warning of apartheid.

I mean -- it is very hard once the evidence starts piling up, you know, to avoid the obvious. So, I do use the term apartheid, but I don't just use that based on my own impressions. The evidence is just -- is just pretty clear as far as I'm concerned.

ZAKARIA; And to those who say, look, what you describe on the ground may be the reality, but it's complicated. The Palestinians have been willing to take peace deals that have been offered to them. They have a terrorist group like Hamas that attacks innocent Israelis. What do you say to that?

COATES: Well, I don't -- I don't deny any of that. But what I say to that is there are things in this world that we just take, you know, strong moral positions on. Certainly, the history of it is complicated. Certainly, the systems over there are complicated. But I don't think the morality of it is. I've used this metaphor quite a bit but I am somebody that is anti- death penalty. I am anti-death penalty for those that sell nickel bags of marijuana on a corner and for serial killers too. And so, like the case against apartheid for me is not a case of Palestinian hyper morality, but the idea that, you know, Hamas is so noble.

There is nothing that I could have seen over there that would have led me to conclude, yes, apartheid is justified. There's just nothing I could see that would, you know, make me feel like that was OK.

ZAKARIA: There's a lot more in the book, but I just thought we do a deep dive on this one very important chapter.

COATES: I actually appreciate it, Fareed. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, Meryl Streep went viral at the U.N. with the speech about the treatment of women in Afghanistan. I'll tell you what she said and I'll suggest a somewhat controversial path to make things better.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:52:26]

ZAKARIA: And now for the last look. Last week, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, the actress Meryl Streep made a powerful plea on behalf of Afghan women.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MERYL STREEP, ACTRESS: Today in Kabul a female cat has more freedoms than a woman. A cat may go sit on her front stoop and feel the sun on her face, she may chase a squirrel into the park. A squirrel has more rights than a girl in Afghanistan today because the public parks have been closed to women and girls by the Taliban. A bird may sing in Kabul, but a girl may not and a woman may not in public.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Streep is absolutely right to call attention to the appalling oppression of women under Taliban rule. The question is, what exactly can the rest of the world do to help?

So far, the U.S. has taken a hard line. It has refused to recognize the Taliban's government, maintain sanctions on the Taliban, and frozen Afghanistan's central bank reserves. Last week, a group of countries threatened to bring the Taliban to the International Court of Justice for violating a U.N. treaty that protects women from discrimination. Activists want to go further and codify gender apartheid as a crime against humanity in order to charge the Taliban.

This all certainly sounds morally satisfying and right, but the strategy of shaming and sanctioning hasn't really worked against U.S. adversaries from Cuba, to Iran, to North Korea. None of those governments have collapsed or reconciled with the U.S. or granted any freedom to their people.

An important voice is instead calling for engagement with the Taliban, that of Saad Mohseni, who co-founded Afghanistan's largest media company. Mohseni abhors the Taliban's treatment of women among his many disagreements with the group, but he wants to try to make progress. He writes in a fascinating new book, a kind of memoir of his time in Afghanistan, "Radio Free Afghanistan," about how his company now generally cooperates with the Taliban's rules but often negotiates the bounds of what is possible and occasionally even defies the Taliban.

After the group returned to power in 2021, Mohseni's networks canceled programming they knew would be objectionable. In other ways, they adapted, hosting all female shows to avoid the mixing of genders.

[10:55:03]

They complied with a new rule requiring women to cover their faces, but also mounted a protest by having men wear face masks, even asking Taliban officials to wear them. When the Taliban closed girls' schools, they produce televised education so it could reach them.

Mohseni believes the Taliban can be reasoned with, to some extent, and that there are workarounds. But the Taliban crave respect above all else, and often dig in when challenged. Sometimes his (ph) outlets (ph) have taken simple steps to modify them, dropping the term Taliban and instead speaking of the Islamic Emirate, their preferred term.

Many in the West understandably consider the Taliban beyond the pale, undeserving of any legitimacy. But the reality is they are now in control of Afghanistan. The world has to work with them in some way.

That's not to say that Washington should abandon all pressure far from it, but it must be pragmatic. Sometimes progress comes in small increments and half-measures, but it's better than none at all especially for the long-suffering women of Afghanistan.

Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)