Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; Interview with Former U.S. Department Assistance Secretary of State for Israeli- Palestinian Affairs Andrew P. Miller; Interview with Carnagie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Karim Sadjadpour; Interview with Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 02, 2024 - 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.
The wider Middle East war is officially underway, and we get every angle. First, how will the Netanyahu government respond to Iran's salvo? Former
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak joins us.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military pressure can at times enable diplomacy. Of course, military pressure can also lead to miscalculation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- how will the U.S. try to calm this conflict? Can it? I asked Andrew P. Miller, former State Department official and Biden policy critic.
And did Iran get checkmated? I asked Iran expert and senior fellow for the Carnegie endowment, Karim Sajjapour, about its ballistic missile volley.
Plus, on another front, Israel's ground offensive against Hezbollah. We get the view from the Lebanese foreign minister.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is warning that Iran, quote,
"will pay" after firing around 200 ballistic missiles at military targets last night. Iran said it was in response to a raft of assassinations by
Israel against its proxies and members of its own armed forces. Israel says along with its allies it intercepted almost all the incoming, and three
military bases that were struck are already up and running again.
When it comes to retaliation, the U.S. president, Joe Biden, says he does not support an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
Meantime, on its northern front, Israel is sending in more forces to fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The IDF says at least eight of its troops
have been killed since their ground offensive began, while Lebanon says a thousand people have been killed in the past two weeks, with a million
displaced.
Now, almost swept from the headlines is Gaza. Very little mention of the remaining Israeli hostages there, or the nearly 90 Palestinians killed in
the enclave just last night alone. We'll get crucial perspective from this throughout the region. But first, let's focus on Israel, and we are joined
by former Israeli Prime Minister and former army chief Ehud Barak. Welcome back to our program, Prime Minister.
So, I want to ask you, what are Israel's options now? What would you be thinking about were you still in position?
EHUD BARAK, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I prefer to try to explain what the options not what I would have been doing if I were prime minister now.
I think that Israel has a compelling need to respond. No modern country suffered twice within several months, mid-April. And right now, a salvo of
200 ballistic missiles aimed at its territory.
So, there will be an Israel response. It probably will take several days. Probably there is a need for coordination with neighboring countries. We
cannot reach Iran without crossing another two neighboring countries. And with the United States, who is heavily deployed in order to back us
defensively. So -- but I think that if you want to have an idea of what might come, look at the Yemenites, the (INAUDIBLE), the Houthis are about
the same distance as Tehran from Israel.
And we -- the Israeli Air Force strike twice in the recent months or so. And always a kind of the major port, oil refinery, or probably power
plants. And that's the most probable targets in Iran. Iran is sensitive. It's economic. It's hurt them painfully and we can do it. We can do it more
than once. But that's mainly.
I think that the reservation that Biden raised about hitting the nuclear military plant will be taken into account, but I cannot tell you that
Israel will not try to hit or to touch this subject as well. And basically, I think that the Iranians will keep doing it, but they chose a strategy
developed for 15 years a ring of fire around Israel to cover the distance from Israel.
[13:05:00]
So, they had the Hamas in the south the Hezbollah in the north, probably some other kind of -- the militia, Iraqi militia, the Houthis, and even
certain cells in -- within the West Bank. So, all this ring will be activated probably more forcefully.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me just take two things. Do you think that you need to escalate to de-escalate? I think what everybody's saying, oh, my
goodness, we've got to try to de-escalate. But from the Israeli side, no idea of de-escalation, it's actually escalate. Do you -- is that what you
think is on the table? Nobody's looking in your country to de-escalate, correct?
BARAK: You see, I think that the two -- I think if 200 missiles from a neighbor 1,300 miles from you would befallen on the British capital or on
the U.K, the British government would immediately respond very forcefully and any other government would do the same. So, we are not escalating. We
are responding to something that you cannot avoid responding to.
And since I don't think that we can afford spending 200 missiles on Iran, we'll have to send our Air Force, which is superior to theirs, and it can
do the job, as proven in somewhat different conditions in Yemen.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me ask you --
BARAK: So, there will be a --
AMANPOUR: Are you surprised? How do you assess, as a former military chief, essentially the failure of Iran's missiles to do the damage that, I
don't know, it wanted to do or not? Or how do you assess it? Is the weaponry useless? Are they incompetent? Is it just because Israel had such
a sophisticated, you know, air defense system plus sophisticated allies helping? How do you assess that?
BARAK: We were -- we are working for more than 30 years now, and especially in the last 20 years, on what we call multi-layer anti-missile
system of all types from Iron Dome, for the lower range David Sling, for the middle range and cruise missiles and the arrow and super arrow and this
branch for the out of the -- out of space kind of interceptions. And we are supported in the identification the threats by the Americans and we are
even supported by the United States government, the U.K. government and neighbors in identifying what's happening in intercepting.
AMANPOUR: OK.
BARAK: Most of the burden spent this time on the Israeli air defense, and we did it very, very successfully this time.
AMANPOUR: Another question --
BARAK: So, it is -- it's not useless, but it's very costly, even for Iran.
AMANPOUR: Right. You have heard your own prime minister talk in terms of regime change. You've heard a former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, very
clearly last night say to CNN, basically, Israel has its greatest opportunity in 50 years to change the face of the Middle East. We must act
now to destroy Iran's nuclear program, its central energy facilities, and to fatally cripple this terrorist regime. We have the justification. We
have the tools. There are times when history knocks at our door, and we must open it. This opportunity must not be missed.
Do you support regime change? Is that what you think the government should attempt now, your government?
BARAK: Look, I would love to see a regime change. The Iranian people is a great people. They are suffer very bad ayatollahs at the top. But I'm
probably older and probably more realistic a little bit than Bennett. I'd say he's a great guy. And I hope -- wish him all success in Israeli
politics in the coming round.
But I think that if you have seen Netanyahu in the U.N. with these two maps, the alliance of blessing, I believe that in order to run a full-scale
attempt to, to change the Middle East, we need all this alliance of blessing led by the United States, having the Sunni autocracies around us,
Israel, and backing by Western Europe and -- or the E.U. and like-minded countries in North America and the Far East.
[13:10:00]
We need this wide alliance of moderates that Biden proposed 11 months ago and repeatedly raised something that our military and defense establishment
proposed to Netanyahu all along the way and strongly fought for reasons that is kept by Netanyahu kind of on not fully explained. He rejected it
all the time, except for in his -- in this (INAUDIBLE).
This is the way. Israel is very strong. Israel cannot re-arrange the Middle East on its own. We need the -- this alliance to be with us and it need
trust. It's need building trust. It needs coordination, cooperation, even the rejection -- or even the failing missile attack were helped by this de
facto under the surface alliance. We need them in the open.
AMANPOUR: And a question about Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as you all know and you all talked about, essentially on October 7th it was the -- you
know, the zero point, I guess, of his career, presiding over what terrible, terrible attack happened inside Israel. And a lot of people were talking
about, you know, writing his political obituary. Except now, the talk is that he is triumphed, he is winning, and you even have your ambassador here
in London saying, we have defeated Hamas, we have defeated Hezbollah, and we will defeat Iran's capabilities against us.
Assess for me one year later -- OK. Tell me about where you are with Hamas and Hezbollah.
BARAK: Look, the last two weeks were very, very good for every Israeli. It resumed the sense of self-confidence, the trust in the capabilities of both
our intelligence and operational kind of forces and especially the air force. The series of the last two weeks from the pagers event, through the
elimination of Nasrallah and a major part of the leadership of Hezbollah, combined with the successful Air Force attacks, both in Lebanon and in
Yemen, and even in the memory of Haniyeh kind of disappeared somehow in the idea of guest house, inside Tehran, that resumed the trust and even raised
a lot of respect, probably strengthened the deterrence of Israel.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
BARAK: But having said that I think that -- you know, I happen to be in wars about most of my life. That's like a roller coaster. After any kind of
peak of euphoria come some painful moments, we probably have now -- in the last 24 hours, our relatively small forces who entered into Lebanon just to
the first two miles or three miles behind the border in order to dismantle infrastructure that was similar to what the Hamas Nukhba had in the south
by the one of Hezbollah.
AMANPOUR: OK.
BARAK: Even this little operation already got its own price.
AMANPOUR: Right, right. They say eight soldiers so far. Yes.
BARAK: I would not be directed to euphoria. You should be realistic and cold headed all along the world. The public could afford these yo-yo -- or
emotions, not the leaders.
AMANPOUR: Yes. So, you know, Haniyeh mysteriously disappeared. Most people believe that Israel had him assassinated inside Tehran, which the Iranians
said was one of the reasons for the retaliation. But you talk about -- well, you know, the Gaza War seems to have fallen off the map. Ninety
people there were killed overnight according to authorities there. The hostages are not even being mentioned, which is a tragedy.
And many of your friends, including American friends like Dennis Ross and the others are saying, this military achievement, whatever it looks like,
must also be in the service of some kind of political achievement. So, I see you nodding. And so, I want to play a soundbite from foreign minister
of Jordan, one of the nations that has a peace treaty with you. Here's Ayman Safadi last week at the U.N.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Can you ask Israelis what's their narrative, other than, I'm going to continue to go to war, I'm going
to kill this and kill that and destroy this and this and that? The amount of damage that Israeli government has done, 30 years of efforts to convince
people that peace is possible, this Israeli government killed it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Do you agree that there is the idea of a peace process that you championed yourself so hard has been now killed off?
[13:15:00]
BARAK: No, I don't believe it's killed. It cannot be killed. But I listened to the whole speech of Safadi. I think it deserve being heard
carefully by Israelis. It will help to understand the region, in spite of the fact that there is -- also his speech is only half of the truth. It's
not the whole picture.
But I can tell you the following, the founding father of Israel, Ben- Gurion, set a three maxims for going to war. Always have a superpower on your side, make the war very short, aggressive, assertive through the
enemy's ground in order to end it quickly so you can still have legitimacy and to harvest the achievements in the battlefield be translated into
diplomatic and political ones.
And number three, always before, during, and after war hold firm your grip on the moral high ground. Israel is not alone in the world. We are strong,
but not only potent. We need the world. We need North America. We need Western Europe. We need the likeminded countries. Altogether, some 40
countries on Earth. And never forget it.
So, Netanyahu behaves as if he rejects aggressively all these three maxims one by one in the running of the world. That's why, in spite of the
strength and he will take some of the credit of recent achievement of the last two weeks, but also, we always be responsible for the tragedy on 7th
of October for running the most failing work since they were still in Gaza, the hostages are still there, as you have mentioned. And the right way had
been, and is still the same, to put an end to the whole story in the south, to rescue the hostages, to come into this alliance, to bring inter Arab
force into the Gaza Strip.
The real victory over Sinwar is not to kill all his terrorists or to kill more Gazans, innocent Gazans. It is only if he's replaced by someone else,
and that was neglected by Netanyahu from day one. The same applies in the north. We can enter. We have to do something. We cannot pretend to conquer
Lebanon or to have a total victory in Lebanon.
Again, Hezbollah should be -- it will end with certain internationally arranged political diplomatic arrangements.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
BARAK: And there is an old Roman saying, if you don't know which port you want to reach, no wind will take you there. That's exactly what happened to
Netanyahu, and that's the tragedy of Israel.
AMANPOUR: Well, you know, I'm going to raise those questions with my next guest, former State Department official. Ehud Barak, thank you so much
indeed for being with us.
So, let us get the view from the United States. Andrew P. Miller was, until recently, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli
Palestinian Affairs. And in a new article for Foreign Affairs Magazine, he argues that, quote, "America Needs a New Strategy to Avert Even Greater
Catastrophe in the Middle East. And he's joining me now to talk about from Washington, D.C.
Andrew Miller, welcome to the program. You probably heard Prime Minister Barak sort of lay out the three pillars, as laid out by Ben-Gurion, all
those years ago and how Israel needs, actually, to pay attention to its place in the world and to its allies and to its surrounding nations. And he
is saying that Netanyahu is doing none of those, despite what is deemed as current military successes by Israel.
What do you think -- just before I get to the U.S. position on this, what do you think about Israel's place in the world in this last year?
ANDREW P. MILLER, FORMER U.S. DEPARTMENT ASSISTANCE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS: Well, thanks for having me, Christiane. I
tend to agree with Former Prime Minister Barak's assessment that none of those criteria and Ben-Gurion's three maxims has been met.
The one that has been met has been superpower support in the form of U.S. support. But it's important not only in the short-term, but maintaining
that support over the long-term. And as we've seen within the United States domestically, there is growing resistance, growing discomfort with U.S.
support for Israel or U.S. support for certain types of Israeli policies.
Israel's global reputation has clearly deteriorated over the past year, that's unfair at a certain level, given that Hamas was responsible for
starting this war in the first place. And we need to remember a year later just what an atrocity October 7th was.
[13:20:00]
But the reality is much of the world, in particular in the Global South, has an increasingly dim view of Israel. And in terms of the actual conduct
of the war, this has not been short. This has not been precise. We are now almost 12 months into the war, it's expanding, and there isn't a clearly
articulated end state either militarily or politically for what Israel's trying to achieve.
AMANPOUR: So, that -- I thought that Ehud Barak laid out really cogently. I mean, he's been there. He's been a military commander. He's been a prime
minister. He offered a very, very far-reaching peace agreement to the Palestinians, which they did not take up in 2000 at Camp David.
But I want to know in your period as the key official on this issue at the State Department, did you ever war game this kind of multifront battle that
is happening right now? And did you, and do you believe that the United States would be the indispensable wingman, so to speak, if, for instance,
Israel was going to go and strike targets in Iran and all the rest of it?
Barak seemed to indicate that, yes, they have the U.S. support, but I didn't get to ask him whether he means actual military wingman-ism, so to
speak.
MILLER: Right. That's certainly a critical question. Israel does not need our active military support for a retaliatory response to the fusillade
launched against Israel by Iran yesterday, depending on what target it chooses. If Israel does want to go after nuclear infrastructure, that would
require some additional help from the United States. And President Biden, as you mentioned earlier, has said that he does not support such action.
But in the long-term, if this is a regional war, if it does expand, Israel could potentially prevail in that conflict without active U.S.
participation, but it could not prevail at an acceptable cost. And what I mean by that is the number of casualties that Israel would sustain, Israeli
civilians, as well as Israeli soldiers would be prohibitive. And Israel's power projection capability is quite impressive via the air, but they don't
have the same expeditionary capacity with the IDF ground forces.
The idea of the IDF deploying in large numbers to Iran or to Yemen is something that is well beyond anything Israel has ever contemplated. We
have thought about these scenarios. And from the very start of the war, one of our primary objectives was preventing the war in Gaza from metastasizing
into a regional war because of the immense level of risk that's involved.
Unfortunately, and despite efforts to prevent it from spreading, we seem to be closer to that point, if not at that point than ever before. And
managing that escalation risk while ensuring that we're not creating incentives for Iran or other actors to join the fray is going to be a very
difficult balancing act.
AMANPOUR: And you have essentially written about the U.S. needs another strategy. I think you sort of described the U.S. being essentially in the
passenger seat right now, even though it's Israel's biggest ally and provides it with the wherewithal to conduct these military operations.
What should and what could the U.S. -- I mean, we've seen endless shuttle diplomacy. We've seen efforts to resolve at least somehow the situation
between Hamas and Israel, get the hostages back, do the swaps, get a ceasefire, et cetera, it hasn't happened and it's been a year. What should
the U.S. do? What more leverage does it have?
MILLER: Well, I think two caveats are important. One, the administration has made efforts to try to shape and to influence Israeli military
operations over the past year. It has not been extraordinarily successful. There have been some instances in which we've had an impact. I think the
Rafah campaign, while destructive, was ultimately less destructive than it would have been had Israel executed its original plans.
There were some changes to humanitarian aid at different points in time, but that's relatively parlate (ph) or relatively limited compared to having
a real impact on the course of the war. The second caveat is, it is going to be more difficult to influence Israel now than it was at any point prior
to this, in part because of what you raised with the former prime minister, which is Prime Minister Netanyahu is in a stronger position politically now
than at any time since this war began.
[13:25:00]
The polling indicates that he's up to 40 percent approval, which isn't great on an absolute scale, but it's much better than where he was. And
even more importantly, he's been able to expand his coalition in the Knesset to bring an additional right of center members. Now, it's at 68,
which makes it much more difficult to engineer a vote of no confidence.
In terms of what the United States should do, I think it's -- there are two things. One is the United States needs to define what its objectives are
for these wars. One of those objectives is Israel's security, including the release of the hostages, which, as you mentioned, has fallen off the radar
since the recent escalation has taken place.
But what is in the U.S. interest? What do we want to see come out of this? We've, of course, talked about the two-state solution. We would like to see
a functioning, stable government in Lebanon where the monopoly of force is possessed by the government and not by a militant group. We would like to
see stability amongst our partners throughout the region.
We certainly want to ensure that international commerce is continuing, not just oil and gas, but a lot of other goods. All of those are part of what
we need to achieve, and we need to assess what's happening against those rather than simply evaluating what's happening against Israel's own
standards, which are not exactly the same as ours, and we may have differences of opinion as to what is in Israel's interest or not.
How you do that, I think, is you need to reach an understanding with Israel regarding what their -- what the parameters of these campaigns are going to
be. And I always think back to the Atlantic Charter, when the United States supported Britain during World War II and ultimately joined the war,
President Roosevelt was able to get Prime Minister Churchill to sign a charter saying, this is what we're trying to achieve in this war and it
includes the liberation of colonies, which obviously Prime Minister Churchill was not particularly keen about. So, we do have precedent. It is
reasonable given U.S. influence to shape that.
In terms of tactics, I think we need to apply more political pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular and his coalition.
AMANPOUR: And you've even wrote -- written --
MILLER: Again, the --
AMANPOUR: Sorry, you've even written in your latest, Blinken, i.e., secretary of state, would have to persuade Netanyahu that he has something
to lose by spurning the U.S. And so, far that message has not been telegraphed. We would love to keep this chat up, but we will have you on
again and we're moving on to our next guest. Thank you so much, Andrew Miller, for joining us.
Now, Iran analysts and Israeli officials alike have used terms like checkmated to describe the position Iran finds itself in today. How did a
regime that doesn't want a full-scale war with Israel and considers regime survival its highest priority get into this place? Joining me now is Karim
Sadjadpour, an expert on the ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei, and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Karim, welcome back to
our program.
KAREEM SADJADPOUR, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNAGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Do you agree, first and foremost, with that terminology that Iran is right now checkmated?
SADJADPOUR: It's too soon to say, Christiane. Certainly, Iran is probably in one of the most difficult positions It's been since the 1979 revolution.
This is a regime which is deeply committed to its ideology, but as you mentioned, also deeply committed to its survival. And I don't think right
now you could argue that it's on the verge of collapse, but this Israeli retaliation, which we're all anticipating, could be the most serious
external attack on Iran since 1979, especially it goes after Iran's oil facilities, its nuclear facilities, military installations and critical
infrastructure, the regime will definitely be in crisis mode.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you think when you look at it, you must be talking to sources and things, but what is the most likely? Because, you know,
people have talked about proportional retaliation. But that seems to be off the cards, if you listen to the Israelis, that it has to be a lot more than
that in order to force a de-escalation, so to speak.
Do you think that it would be oil infrastructure, nuclear infrastructure, et cetera? And yes, it would be the hardest strikes. How do you think that
would play out in Iran?
SADJADPOUR: I think those things are all in the conversation right now. Now, when Israel has taken major action in the last weeks and months
against either Iran or its Axis of Resistance, meaning when Israel has assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, when it assassinated Hassan
Nasrallah, there's no indication that they checked in advance, they got the blessing in advance from the United States on that.
[13:30:00]
But something of this magnitude, blowing up Iranian oil installations, blowing up Iran's nuclear facilities, that has profound implications for
the global economy, for U.S. national security. And I think it's unlikely that Israel will take those types of drastic measures absent some type of a
coordination or a green or yellow light from the U.S. administration.
Now, we can only speculate how the Iranians would react to that. I think that Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards have been in this
dilemma because by not reacting to things like the assassination of Haniyeh, they essentially projected weakness and vulnerability and they
feel like, in hindsight, they actually encouraged greater Israeli provocations.
At the same time, Christiane, this is an 85-year-old supreme leader, Khamenei, probably the longest serving dictator in the world. He hasn't
left Iran since 1989. He's not well equipped to be a wartime leader in a very high-tech military and financial war against Israel and potentially
the United States.
AMANPOUR: So, why do you think then, because he clearly had to give his approval, that after a huge amount of debate, and including the new
president of Iran, and I spoke to the vice president of Iran, they made it very clear, and they used these words, we do not want to be, quote/unquote,
"entrapped into a war with Israel." So, what happened?
SADJADPOUR: For me, Christiane, the president, Former Foreign Minister Zarif, these are essentially non entities, they have no decision-making
authority. And the real balance of power, which is not totally clear from afar, is the relationship between the supreme leader and his top
Revolutionary Guard commanders. To what extent is he ordering them or are they dictating now to him?
Because again, on one hand, there is a Khamenei doctrine, which is when you're under pressure, either domestically or externally, don't give into
pressure, don't retreat because that's going to encourage the pressure. But also, as Hannah Arendt said, even the most radical revolutionary becomes a
conservative the day after the revolution because they have a lot to lose. They want to preserve something.
And I think that the calculation is that by not acting in the last month or two, the Israelis just grew emboldened. But I don't think what they did
yesterday puts this to rest. They're going to face a major retaliation now from Israel. The likes of which they haven't experienced.
AMANPOUR: Yes, that seems to be clear and seems to be being telegraphed all over. And it seems to be -- have been responded to by Iran. Let me just
play this a little bit of a clip from the IRGC commander.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAJOR GENERAL MOHAMMAD BAGHERI, IRANIAN ARMED FORCES CHIEF OF STAFF (through translator): If the Zionist regime that has gone crazy is not
controlled by America and Europe and wants to continue these crimes or wants to do anything against our sovereignty and territorial integrity,
tonight's operation will be repeated several times stronger and all their infrastructure will be targeted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, actually that was the army chief of staff, not the IRGC. Are they working in tandem? And what could Iran do if something else happens?
Because now, twice you've had a barrage of several hundred missiles, drones, et cetera, and almost all of them have been intercepted and it
didn't create the damage by a long shot that Iran, I assume, intended. What do you think they have?
SADJADPOUR: Christiane, this is very uncomfortable terrain now for Iran, because Iran and its so-called Axis of Resistance, they're very good when
there's the element of surprise. October 7th, the Israelis were sleeping, no one was paying attention. They're good at carrying out assassinations in
places where no one is paying attention.
But when the world and the Israelis are on very, very high alert, their capabilities are much more limited. As we saw yesterday, the only
individual whom they killed was unfortunately, a Palestinian individual in the West Bank. Very few of Iran's barrage went through.
And so, this is not the type of war that they're comfortable fighting. And I think -- you know, I always say that the parameters for the Iranian
regime, on one hand, if they don't respond at all, they lose face, which is not a good look for a dictatorship. But on the other hand, if they respond
excessively, they could lose their heads. And I think they did respond excessively and we'll wait to see how the Israelis retaliate.
AMANPOUR: And finally, the former Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, and you've obviously heard and it's been written about, you know, he said,
the leadership of Iran, which used to be good at chess made a terrible mistake this evening. He was talking yesterday. We must act now to destroy
Iran's nuclear program, its central energy facilities, and to fatally cripple this country this terrorist regime.
[13:35:00]
How do you explain this -- I mean, everybody -- you know, they were always thought of as the, you know, the negotiators, the -- et cetera. I was going
to say the bazaaris (ph), but you know what I mean? And capable of playing chess in the nation, which invented chess. But as you say, this has gone
off the rails, or potentially could go off the rails.
SADJADPOUR: You know, the Islamic Republic is like a late-stage Soviet Union. When you constantly prioritize ideology over competence, you're left
with a system which is ideologically bankrupt, increasingly economically bankrupt. And it's totally infiltrated. There's such not only popular
discontent in Iran, but regime discontent that I think there must be just tremendous paranoia and mistrust about, you know, who leaked this
information that got Nasrallah killed, that got Haniyeh killed? How did American journalist Tom Friedman know when Iran was going to attack
probably before Iran's own president, Pezeshkian, did?
And so, this is a real dilemma that the regime is in, and there's no good answers because it's a regime which has shown itself incapable of really
reforming and improving.
AMANPOUR: And just 30 seconds, do you think the people of Iran will be mobilized against the regime if Israel attacks?
SADJADPOUR: That's a very difficult question to answer. My sense is that it will polarize society along the lines, which is polarized now, meaning
those who are supportive of the regime, perhaps 15, 20 percent of society, they're going to be angered against Israel and double down in support of
the regime. And those who are opposed the regime will be even more angry with them. But unfortunately, those people are unorganized and unarmed. So,
I don't anticipate that they can take power away from the Revolutionary Guards who are highly armed and highly organized.
AMANPOUR: All right. Karim Sadjadpour, I mean, I'm hearing in my ear that some people think chess was invented in India. We'll encyclopedia that.
Thank you so much, indeed, for joining us.
SADJADPOUR: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Now, just as it does in Gaza, the Israeli military is ordering civilians in Lebanon to get out of the way of its strikes on Hezbollah. And
it's escalating its ground offensive there, too, as we heard already at some cost. The IDF says a at least eight IDF soldiers have been killed, but
so many Lebanese have as well. CNN's Jomana Karadsheh is there joining us from Beirut.
Tell us what you know politically and militarily, but then, I really want to know what you're seeing and hearing from people because it's always the
civilians, you know, who get caught very dramatically in the middle.
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, that is the case, isn't it, Christiane? With every war, it's the civilians who bear the brunt of these
conflicts and people here are watching what is unfolding in this country. And there's this just mood of anxiety, apprehension, and fear and people
just really worried that this is just the beginning of a long war.
I mean, about 48 hours ago, you had the Israeli military announcing the start of their ground operations in Lebanon, what they described as
targeted and limited operations. But anyone you speak to here would tell you they don't believe that they feel that this is -- there's a history
repeating itself here, you know, going back to 1982, the Israeli military, as you know, did announce that they were going to be carrying out this
limited incursion into Southern Lebanon, which turned into a full-scale invasion and was followed by years and years of Israeli military occupation
of Southern Lebanon. And then you have more recent history, what is happening in Gaza right now.
And when it comes to the actual situation in the south, since that announcement by the Israelis, where we understand from security sources,
senior Lebanese security sources, as well as a source within the U.N. peacekeeping force, they say they've not seen a full-scale invasion, what
they're seeing is these sporadic raids, as they're describing them, with Israeli forces coming across the border and going back into Israel.
And today, the Lebanese army saying that the Israelis did reached the blue line, that they had gone 400 meters into Lebanon before withdrawing back.
Hezbollah, for the first time, saying that they engaged in clashes with Israeli forces. And you have the Israelis announcing that eight soldiers
were killed in combat in Southern Lebanon.
So, there's really this feeling that while Hezbollah has suffered major devastating blow after blow in recent days that, you know, the situation on
the ground when it comes to their capabilities, obviously no one really knows what their capabilities are right now.
[13:40:00]
But when it comes to close combat, guerrilla warfare, fighting on their own turf in this rugged terrain of Southern Lebanon, the feeling is that they
would have an advantage. And the feeling is here, real fear, that this is not going to be limited, not going to be small, and it's going to last a
very, very long time.
AMANPOUR: It's always the people, the human story that often gets overlooked. Jomana, thank you very much for bringing it to us. And just
before Iran's missile attack last night, I spoke with Lebanon's foreign minister, Abdallah Bou Habib.
I was asking about the country's ongoing predicament at the hands of Hezbollah and Israel as well. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister, welcome back to the program.
ABDALLAH BOU HABIB, LEBANESE FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Things have reached a major crisis in your country since we last spoke. And I want to ask you, you are in the United States right now. You
know that several of the administration officials agree with Israel's, you know, ground incursion into your country. What do you make of that as
you're in Washington trying to get support for a ceasefire?
HABIB: Well, they also agreed on the -- you know, the Biden-Macron statement that calls for a ceasefire. And that calls also the
implementation for 21 days ceasefire. And then. Mr. Hochstein would go to Lebanon and negotiate the ceasefire. OK. And they told us that Mr.
Netanyahu agreed on this. And so, we also got the agreement of Hezbollah on that. And you know, what happened since then? That was the day we saw you
in New York.
AMANPOUR: I know. And you were talking about going into the Security Council for this ceasefire. And barely 24 hours later, the head of
Hezbollah was assassinated. Are you saying Hassan Nasrallah had agreed to a ceasefire just moments before he was assassinated?
HABIB: He agreed. He agreed. Yes. Yes. We agreed completely. Lebanon agreed to ceasefire. But consulting with Hezbollah, the speaker, Mr. Berri,
consulted with Hezbollah and we informed the Americans and the French that that's what happened.
AMANPOUR: So --
HABIB: And they told us that Mr. Netanyahu also agreed on the statement that was issued by both presidents.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, as you know, Mr. Netanyahu was also in New York at the time, and he actually said publicly the IDF must fight on. And then, he
ordered the assassination and the targeting of that headquarters, which killed Nasrallah.
So, given all of that, I mean, who do you have any faith in if the strongest country in the world, the United States, seems to have no or very
little influence after publicly saying that there would be a ceasefire?
HABIB: Well, I don't think we have an alternative. Yes. I don't think we have an alternative. We need the United States help, whether we get it or
not, we're not sure yet. But the United States is very important, vital for this ceasefire. If it's -- if it has to happen, the United States is always
important in this regard.
AMANPOUR: One of the issues that you have, obviously, you're a sovereign nation, but you have a separate militia called Hezbollah, a separate army
that has been controlling a lot of the military activities also in parliament for decades.
Is this a moment where Israel -- sorry, is this a moment where Lebanon could reclaim its sovereignty if Hezbollah is on the back foot now? Can
your army fill a vacuum? Is there a vacuum?
HABIB: Look, there wouldn't be a vacuum. The government promised that anytime there is a withdrawal, there is ceasefire, we'll send the army down
south, along with UNIFIL, to assert their presence there. And we'll do that. We are ready to do it anytime there is a ceasefire. But without
ceasefire, we don't want to expose our army, our armed forces to any kind of war. Because we have limited power and we don't want to expose them to
any kind of war.
AMANPOUR: And the question about the power of the Lebanese army. I mean, you may have read, your people may have showed you, articles in The New
York Times, commentary on CNN by our correspondent there, that in this whole crisis, the Lebanese government appears not to be anywhere to be
seen.
Somebody asked why the -- you know, the government isn't doing more. And this volunteer said, there's no government to begin with. The government
will only wake up way after this war has ended. Tell me what you say to that.
[13:45:00]
HABIB: Well, this is a statement people want. They can't get an answer, sometimes they say it. But let me tell you, we have over a million
displaced Lebanese and Syrians as well. And more than 100,00 to 250,000, they went to Syria, which everybody in the western world were saying Syria
is not safe for Lebanese or for Syrians. You see now Lebanese and Syria is going back to Syria.
So, we have a lot of things on our hand as a government. Yes, we have said it many times, the prime minister has said it many times, that the decision
of war was not ours to take. We should take a decision, but we didn't have any cards in the south. And if there is a Hezbollah in the south, a
resistance movement, it's because we have occupation. If Israel has accepted to really finish and implement 1701, probably Hezbollah would not
be as strong and as present in the south as it is -- as it has been until recently.
AMANPOUR: OK. Just to be clear, 1701 is the U.N. resolution that ended the 2006 war, called for a buffer zone, called for all sides to pull back. But
here's my question. As you know, Hezbollah started firing in Israel on October 8th, after October 7th, in support of Hamas. It was unprovoked, in
terms of they fired the first volley. And the question is, Israel waited a year before taking this action into its own hand, because nobody else
stopped Hezbollah. Can you understand that position by Israel, that it had to do something?
HABIB: Well, I don't understand because, I mean, it was a limited one. It was like two, three kilometers both sides of the border. It was not a big
war. Maybe -- it is not the government decision anyway. So -- but it was a limited war that they undertook. The escalation was always coming from the
Israeli side. And now, it's a big escalation, and I don't know how it's going to be ending.
As you know, you're talking to me, I'm in Washington. So, I prayed that some kind of peace would come and I'm working on it. And I'm instructed by
my government to work on peace, that's why I'm staying out of the country.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's interesting. You're staying out of the country I hear because you can't risk going there and getting stuck if the war comes
to the Beirut and closes down the airport.
HABIB: That's right.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you then, first and foremost, you know, that tens of thousands of Israelis have had to be displaced from Northern Israel. So,
for Israel, it's not just a limited thing, it's a bigger thing. But the question I want to ask you is, you've just said limited war. Israel now
says it's incursion into your country is a limited offensive. Do you -- is that what you call it? How do you term what Israel is doing right now?
HABIB: Look, when Israel invades Lebanon, whether it is limited or not limited, it is against -- this is a sovereign country, it's an independent
country, it's a United Nations country, as Israel is, and therefore, we should respect each other. Hezbollah did not go into Israel -- yes, they
fired, I'm not disagreeing with you that they started the war on October 8th and they fire -- they were firing, and the Israelis firing back. But
now there is an incursion, and this is something dangerous. And I hope that they will not do it. So, far we have been threatened to do it.
I think it is important that they should respect the international law, which is, you know, they are not. These are the humanitarian international
law, nor any kind of laws that United Nations put after World War II.
AMANPOUR: And one other question to you. What is the state do you assess of Hezbollah now? You know, so much of its top leadership, not just
Nasrallah, has been wiped out. So, much of its communication strategy with the pagers and the walkie-talkies and all the other things. What is the
state of that military force right now, and its politicians?
HABIB: Well, I'm going to be an analyzing rather than telling you what I know, because I don't know much about it. But any kind of resistance
movement they have, you know, leaders 1, 2, 3 and more than that. So, if one dies, because they expect themselves to be killed or -- in the war.
[13:50:00]
So -- and now, they were saying they have 100,000 troops or resistance persons. Now, if they have 50,000 and 10,000 died, they still have 40,000.
So, there's still a large number. And that's why we need really a ceasefire and then to control the issue and stop the fighting, stop the killing.
You know, 1 million displaced Lebanese, it's a lot. They are sleeping in the streets. They are sleeping -- they are taking into, you know, houses,
that empty houses, empty hotels, they are occupying them. It's a very dangerous situation that we have.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HABIB: And we would like to have some humanitarian help also that did not come yet in sufficient quantity to lever on.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister, thank you so much, indeed, for joining us.
HABIB: Thank you, Christine. Thank you very much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Today's ongoing crisis next to the extraordinary World War II photographer Lee Miller, whose brave work exposed the horrors of
concentration camps, despite facing major pushback for even being on the battlefield simply because she was a woman.
Now, her story is having its moment on the big screen, with actress Kate Winslet playing Miller in the new film "Lee." Here's a snippet of my
interview with Winslet, sharing what she's learnt about Miller's character and life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATE WINSLET, ACTRESS, "LEE": She wasn't well known and she wasn't revered, I felt, for the right reasons. I knew who Lee Miller was, and I
was aware of her work as a photographer, and I knew what she looked like, but I found that as I started to really dig into the rest of her life, the
sort of headline description of her was former muse, actually not even the, a former muse and ex-lover of Man Ray, ex-covergirl, ex-Vogue model. This
sort of -- this kind of reductive things that reduced her, in a way, reduced her power, infantilized her, sort of stuck her in a moment in
history that she couldn't wait to get away from.
AMANPOUR: Man Ray, of course, for those who don't know, the great surrealist artist of the 20th century. And in fact, it wasn't until after
she died that her son found boxes of her diaries and photos hidden away in the attic. It's almost like she didn't want to tell. She didn't want to let
on. Why do you think that was?
WINSLET: I don't think it's a case of want, I think it's a case of couldn't. I think it was a case of so many people had terrible,
debilitating PTSD after World War II, and Lee was no exception to that. In fact, quite the opposite. It re-triggered in her the trauma of something
that happened to her as a child. And I think the level of exposure to such extreme horror as they witnessed during the war, it cracked her open and I
think revealed old wounds that she simply had to do her very best to close, and part of that was quite literally closing her photographs and prints
into boxes, shutting them away, putting them in the attic and never speaking of it.
And it's absolutely true that Antony Penrose had no idea what his mother had done during World War II until after her death in 1977. And he found
those boxes.
AMANPOUR: She wanted to go cover the British war effort and she wasn't allowed, right?
WINSLET: After she had decided that being a war correspondent for British Vogue in order to convey information to the female readers of British
Vogue, she invented that job. And initially, she was -- yes, she was given the task of going and photographing, as you say, the women, the pilots
ferrying bombers between bases in the women's quarters at White Waltham, et cetera, et cetera. But she was absolutely determined to go to the
frontline, and women were not allowed, they were not.
Even when she got there, as we see in the film, she's told no women in the press briefing. I mean, the utter outrage. And what I loved and still love
and will forever love about Lee is that she led her life with intention and grace, integrity and resilience, redefining femininity, already 80 years
ago in the way that we live now. And this was a woman who not only knew that she had already earned her place at the table, but was determined to
sit at the head of it. And that, for me, in terms of a global message about female leadership is phenomenal and important.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And we'll have the full interview airing soon. And finally, tonight, a historic first for Latin America's biggest democracy. This week,
Mexico inaugurates its first ever female president, Claudia Sheinbaum. She's a climate scientist, a former mayor of Mexico City, and the country's
first Jewish head of state.
While to many, she represents a triumph for women in a country deeply scarred by gender-based violence, to others, she embodies simply a
continuation of what's been a democratic erosion, leading a heavily polarized Mexico. The next six years will determine how her turn in the
nation's highest office goes down in history.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
