Christiane Amanpour on the War With Iran

0:00We are honored to have Christian Ammanpur joining us today to talk about issues in and some historical context for the War of the Run. Christian holds the joint positions of CNN's Chief International Anchor and PBS host as her show Ammanpur airs first on CNN International and then also on PBS as Ammanpur and company, which is where many of you probably see it in the United States. In New York, for example, that's 4 p.m. and midnight on Channel 13. And as some of you know, Christian in her own life has also had feet in multiple worlds growing up in both Iran and the UK adding to the perspective of course that she can bring to world events like these in her 40 plus years now with CNN.

1:01Christian, we always appreciate it when you take some time from your own very demanding schedule to come on with us. Welcome back to WNYC. My pleasure, Brian. I wonder if we could take advantage of your deep knowledge by asking you to help listeners know some of the historical context, which I think doesn't get talked about enough since the beginning of the war. Maybe start the clock in 1953 when Iran had an elected leader named Muhammad Mosadek who the United States helped overthrow that year in 1953 and reinstall the Shah of Iran, raise the Shah Polavi. Why would the United States care who ran Iran at that time and want to see Mosadek out? Well, because there were competing objectives, the US CIA did this with the British MI6, their foreign intelligence service here. And for the British, it was trying to get a reverse of Mosadek's nationalization of the Iranian oil company and the Iranian oil production and export, etc.

2:04For the USA, I don't know how much it was to do with oil, but it was most definitely to do with worrying that Mosadek might be sort of played as a pawn by the Soviet Union. For the United States, Iran was, as fatefully, Jimmy Carter, as President said, in 1977, on the eve of the revolution. He came to Iran and he praised it as being an island of stability in the Middle East. That goes to show that for decades and decades, the US, and particularly Kissinger and Nixon during their time, bolstered Iran, bolstered the Shah, gave them lots of weapons and lots of equipment, as their sort of bullwalk against the Soviet Union, whose territory boarded Iran, and the Soviets were always trying to figure out a warm water port, which is the Persian Gulf. And they had always threatened Iran in that way. And so the US and the non-communist world were very keen to keep Iran on side and therefore really brought the Shah in very, very close, a big, big, close hug for decades, as I say, giving him all the military and the political cover and all that to keep him on side.

3:19Unfortunately, though, for the US and for everybody, the 1953 coup, which was the first actually engineered by the United States in the post war era, and then obviously it went on to others in Congo and Latin America. So that was a very, very dramatic moment in US-Iranian relations, which frankly they've never recovered from, because even though the Shah came back 20 odd years later, or just more than that, the Iranians cited that coup as part of a reason to distrust America. And that is then what led to the taking of one of the reasons why the students illegally took the US Embassy captive, many, many US diplomats captive in the embassy in Tehran and held them hostage for 444 days. In 1979, when the Islamic revolution took place, and those American hostages were taken at the embassy, the Shah was toppled, and Ayatollah Khomeini became the supreme leader.

4:25How popular was that, in your understanding of 1979 history, among the Iranian people, I don't mean the hostage taking, but the revolution and who became in charge, and what were the main factions among the public? Well, it was popular, that's why there was the revolution. People did in fact, including people who had been very supportive of the Shah, but many intellectuals, not only the educated and the pro-Western and the women, and many, many others believed that there should also be not just prosperity for a certain limited group of Iranians, but there needed to be democracy. The Shah's regime was not democratic, he did empower women, I will say, and that was a big, big issue. He created Iran's first ever ministry of women affairs, he nominated and made a woman ahead of that. And under the Shah, many, many rights for women were then formalized under the law.

5:26Rights that they didn't have before, and rights that the Ayatollahs immediately took away when they came in having promised women and all the others, democratic Iran. Just imagine these Ayatollahs with turbines and beards actually convinced a huge population in Iran, not just the Shiite faithful, not just the working class, but even the upper classes, and convinced the British government at the time. Obviously, the Americans kind of believed it and so did the French. They believed that this guy, who said he was going to bring democracy to Iran, was going to do that. Well, within very, very short order of toppling the Shah, which as I say was popular at the time, because people rose up against him. Then Ayatollah Khomeini basically cracked down. First, on women first, he closed down the ministry of information, or rather of women's affairs, he made women go back under the veil, the char doh, the hijab, and denied a lot of progress under the law that was made for Iranian women.

6:28So, it's a bait and switch, as many historians say, from the perspective of the Islamic revolution, that is kind of continuing today, but not pretending to be democratic, rather it's a theocracy, it's autocratic, it's tyrannical in many, many aspects of it. And the most recent visualization of that was the bloody crackdown on protesters in January. And listeners, we can take some texts and phone calls for Christian Almanpore, CNN's Chief International Anchor, and host of Almanpore and company on PBS. Anything about the war or some of the historical context that we're discussing, or if you're a long time Almanpore watcher, you know, you can just fanboy or fangirl out a little with her, or anything else relevant to one, two, four, three, three. WNYC, caller text, two, one, two, four, three, three, nine, six, nine, two, for Christian Almanpore, we have her until 10, 30 this morning.

7:30Christian Americans would tend to think of Iran under the Ayatollas as domestically a strict theocracy, as you were just describing a little of, and internationally as an aggressive state, certainly hostile to Israel, but also to the West, death to America, et cetera. And often to many of the Gulf Arab states, is there a way you can describe the main big picture of their international goals over these 47 years? Well, from the beginning in 1979, they really believed they were going to export their Shiite Islamic Republic revolution around the Islamic world. It didn't work, not least because they are in a minority in the Islamic world, the Sunnis make up most of the world's Muslims. But they did keep looking for areas that they could bring on side and help them in the projection of their aim, what they called the axis of resistance to both Israel's conduct against the Palestinians, and to the United States.

8:32They called the United States the Great Satan, actually they called the Britain the little Satan, but they mapped out this part and this role for themselves internationally, as so called axis of resistance. As you've seen since October 7th, most specifically, that aim, that strategy has been completely dashed because of support for Hamas, support for Hezbollah, what they did in Syria supporting the dictator Bashar Assad, and on and on, and obviously the Hutis in Yemen. So Israel and the United States have been pushing Iran back in a very violent and war-like way to the point that Iran is now much, much weakened. And therefore they thought that this time they might be able to come in and take advantage of Iran's weak state, which is a fact, to either try to topple the regime. And that was one of their first articulated goals, both Israel and the United States, but also most definitely to try to make sure that they would never have the ability to make a nuclear weapon.

9:40And this is something that the West and Israel have wanted to make sure for all the decades since Iran has had a nuclear program. There was a nuclear deal, as you remember, a hammered out and negotiated over two years by the Obama administration with the Iranian government, the Iranian revolutionary government, and that actually worked, but that was never satisfactory for Israel, and Trump under pressure or advice from Israel pulled out. So even the limited arms control agreement that was the first ever around the nuclear issue, Trump pulled out of it, Israel said when it was Benjamin Netanyahu, we need to do much more against Iran. So that's for the international, for the domestic, there have been periods of lessening brutality and heightened brutality in some instances, protests on the streets, which are frequent. The Iranian people have been demanding a better, a freer, affordable life, able to travel, not to be international pariahs because of their government.

10:46They've been rising up many, many times, at least for the last 20, 25 years, and I've covered a lot of it, but each and every time they have been brutally suppressed. However, it doesn't mean to say they've stayed at home, each and every time they come out, we don't always hear about it in the West, but they're very, very active in trying to get their own freedom and trying to get their rights. Now, unfortunately, for the Iranian people, their human rights and their democratic rights have never been on the agenda of the international community. So whenever the United States or Britain or Europe or other people talk about trying to change the behavior or the regime in Iran, they never, ever, ever put the support for the Iranian people on the front burner or even down somewhere down in the agenda. It's sometimes lip service, but it's never been a point of policy. And so that's an issue. That's a problem. And whereas the United States has been their holy grail in terms of people have hoped that the United States would help them.

11:52And certainly they hoped that it might happen in the green revolution in 2009, it didn't. They hoped that it would happen this time around because of the words of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, many, many times over these protests say, said, come out, we will help you seize your institutions, help is on the way. Netanyahu in Israel said similar things. Come out, topple this government. You are the proud noble people of Iran. But that helped never came. And now we're sitting here in now nearly two weeks of this war. And there has been less and less talk about the rights and the future of the Iranian people. So as the U.S. tries to figure out what its end game is and what its actual objectives are, which are somewhat different to Israel's. The Iranian people face being slung under the bus again, particularly as President Trump has said and defense secretary Hegset said, this is not about regime change. Trump said we don't care about democracy in Iran, that's not our main aim, etc. etc.

12:54And Trump has also said that they are willing to work with even potentially somebody on the inside who might even be a religious leader. So there's a lot of confused messaging and it's getting worse, the epithets that are being thrown at, I mean it, you know, presumably they mean the regime, but they say Iran. So Trump recently said aboard Air Force One, Iranians are the most evil people in the world. Hegset today called them barbaric savages. Again, he may be talking about the regime, but it, you know, it's the way they have basically treated the Iranian people for decades and decades. Let me take a history call or question for you. And then I'm going to relate it to the present. Because one thing I was going to ask you anyway, that many, many Americans may be confused about is why Iran is attacking Gulf Arab nations, not just Israel or US installations, particularly in the region. And why they have such a rivalry with Saudi Arabia in particular, but I'm going to let David and inward Manhattan start to frame this up. David, you're on WNYC with Christian Ammanpur. Hi.

14:05Good morning. Big fan of the show and thank you, Christian, for coming on board this great, great show. Can you talk a little bit about the cause of the Iranian Iraqi war in the 80s, which caused many years of hardship? And what was the outcome of it at the end after eight years of war? The Iran or most of the 1980s, that was when the US was forced to know who's saying before they were against them. And if you think that's an accurate description, I know that the US considered both of those countries, enemies of the US to some degree. But it relates to the larger question that I was going to ask about why there's so much rivalry between Iran and Arab states in the area, not just between Iran. And US interests or Israel? Well, I would say that the caller's question is incredibly valid and goes to what you're seeing coming out of the Iranian regime right now.

15:07In other words, the Saddam Hussein president of Iraq at the time thought Iran was weak because it was immediately, let's say a year after the revolution, and they were still consolidating. So he thought he could, you know, again, his long-term dream was to battle Iran with whom they Iraq faced fierce competition over what they call the Shat al-Arab waterway that leads into the streets of Hormors, into the Persian Gulf, and is the key outlet for exporting oil. So there was big competition over that. There had been a deal between the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, and it was going, you know, fairly professionally in so far as, you know, various countries, relations go over this huge economic output. And when the Iconic came in, I think, and it's historically correct that Saddam thought he could take it all over and launched an invasion in September of 1980 against Iran, thinking that it would happen quickly and they would be able to take over quickly.

16:14It took eight years. It didn't end until a very deep into 1988 and it ended in negotiation and essentially a stalemate. But what it really did was what you're seeing now, it was the first actual battle, existential battle that the Islamic Republic faced. And therefore, it put all its natural and human resources. I mean, its whole population was thrown at this war. It was a wartime population, a wartime endeavor, a wartime economy. But most importantly, for today, might give you an idea of the further of the Islamic Revolution regards and the Basage today. The Basages essentially a volunteer, you know, foot soldiers of the Revolution regard and the army back in 1980. Iran essentially conscripted tens of thousands of young boys. I mean, we're talking teenagers.

17:17Put red bands around their heads emblazoned with the Allahu Akbar. God is great and all of that. There might have even been green bands, but anyway, whatever, sent them into the minefields that Saddam and others had laid around the borders. They were the advance, you know, mine crews, anti-D mining crews, humans were sent into that slaughter. And in the end, Iran, as I said, battled to a stalemate and did not lose. But it shows you that even that kind of, I mean, I don't know, it's just a horrendous thing to do that they did it. And that further, maybe amongst diminishing, you know, amounts of people, but that further is the further that fuels the Basage today, the Islamic Revolution regard and the whole system. It is a system based on repelling foreign invasion, international pressure, et cetera.

18:20And why you're seeing the Revolution regard take the lead in the public, Iranian commentary and action during this war. Even though US and Israel had hoped that by killing off Ayatollah Khomeini and his top layer at the very beginning in the first hours, the first strike, that would cause the system to wobble and shudder and, you know, lose faith. And that would be the opportunity they hope the US and Israel and the opposition hoped that that would be the opportunity to show the rest of the regime that they needed to start defecting, put down their arms, go to the other side, surrender, et cetera. And that would lead to regime change so far that hasn't happened. But that was certainly the thinking at the beginning. I've seen some analysis that says Iran may be making a tactical or strategic error by attacking the Gulf states because they might have been with Iran to some degree in opposing US military intervention in the region and pressured the US to stop quickly.

19:29But that Iran's attacks are making the Gulf states feel betrayed and like they can't trust Iran. And so throwing the Gulf states into the United States camp of really wanting to destroy Iran's military as much as possible. Does that analysis ring through to you at all? I'm sorry. I forgot to answer that. But here's the thing. I asked the most senior Saudi official who I've been speaking to recently and that's the former head of their spy agency, their CIA. And he was ambassador to the US and to the UK. So he's very, very well versed. He also was Saudi Arabia's lead on the Taliban and other such things when they face this terrible threat like everybody did from Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, et cetera. So just to say he's incredibly plugged in and very well versed. Well, the first thing he said to me was that he is surprised that the US is surprised or that anybody is surprised by Iran's response. Because he said that Iran, including the foreign minister and other Iranian regime officials, had gone over and again to the capitals in the Gulf states and explained to them,

20:40please don't allow this, you know, the US to attack us from your bases from your areas where you all have these US bases. And you have this relationship with the United States because here's our plan of retaliation. They said, first, we will attack Israel in retaliation. Second, we will attack US bases in your countries, in your states, in retaliation. And third, we will attack other economic, you know, tourism, civilian, those kind of targets, which they've been striking. So this was very, very well telegraphed by Iran, according to the Saudi former defense, former spy chief. And we also heard about it in the press at the time before the war. And those leaders, in turn, implored the United States, even though they do not like Iran, they are not Iran allies. They have had bad relations with Iran for many, many years, not least because they don't want an Islamic Republic and Islamic revolutions in their Gulf states either.

21:43But that is why they try to get the US not to do this military intervention. And they are very angry now about what happened, you know, the retaliation by Iran, which happens so quickly. All those, you know, three points of escalation happened very quickly because of the force of the US Israel attacks on Iran. And because it's now an existential battle for the Iranians. So look, I mean, you know, war has unintended consequences, and it's really appalling. It looks like the UAE struck a desalination plant in Iran. And if that starts a war against desalination plants in the region, I mean the Gulf states as well, including Saudi Arabia, that is a catastrophe for human life. Right. That is really a catastrophe because they exist on desalination in all these places where they have limited water because of climate change and, you know, and that they are surrounded by salty water.

22:44So this is a catastrophe. Then the other unintended consequence of the United States is believed to have been responsible for the killing of those school girls in the southern region. Minab in that school, according to very meticulous investigations by New York Times and others, they believe that the US is the most likely person, you know, group who did that because they were and they say operating in that area on that first day, the US says that it is investigating. There's no evidence to suggest, as Trump has said, without any evidence that I don't know Iran did it to themselves. Right. Listener texts, it's hilarious, you meaning I think this is the brood you anybody in the media claim democracy is an issue for the West in Iran, given the West's alliance with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, two paragons of democracy.

23:45Listener writes sarcastically and of course Trump has not been supporting the idea of democracy around the world far from it. I think it's fair to say he's been happy to build an alliance of autocracy leaning strong men who support each other. Bolsonaro, Bolsonaro, Putin, Modi, Orbán and Hungary, Bukheli and El Salvador are seeing it now in Venezuela where Maduro's vice president remains in charge, as long as she's more friendly to US interests. And so let's say it's just the military goals and then the US and Israel stop the campaign. What happens then to the Iranian people? And to set this up and I know you touched on this before, now I'm going to play the clip. This is President Trump in his video announcing the war 10 days ago, 30 seconds. For many years you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want.

24:46So let's see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass. I'm curious, Christian, how you felt or what you thought when you first heard that clip 10 days ago and what you think about it now. Well, very conflicted, like many in the diaspora and many, I guess, inside Iran as well. Because it is true, the Iranians have looked to the US and to the outside to try to help them out of this nightmare of a ruthless regime, which was again, as they say, on full display in the bloody crackdown of the protests of the first week of January. And even then President Trump had called them out onto the streets, seize your institutions, take names, help is on the way and help was not on the way, help was not delivered anyway.

25:50Now, help apparently is there all the military assets or the hardware, you know, the verbal commitments or statements from the White House from Israel, etc. But these statements change on a regular basis. And the latest is that it is not about the Iranian people. It is not about democracy. It is only about now they've shifted to a goal that, as I said, they kicked out the idea of regime change very early on. But they have shifted to, you know, making sure Iran can never have a nuclear program. We were told the whole thing was obliterated in the 12-day war, so in any event, destroy their navy. They don't actually have much of a navy. And make sure they don't have the ability to launch or produce missiles. So it's a narrower goal. But importantly, importantly, and this is correct what the question has said. No, they have not cared about democracy for the people of the Muslim Middle East.

26:53And that's very, very clear. You know, we were told that the idea of going to Iraq was about bringing democracy. Now, it is true that Iraq is a lot freer 25 years later and more democratic than it was under Saddam Hussein by a long way. However, it took 25 years, trillions of dollars, you know, civil war, ISIS, al-Qaeda. I mean, a complete and utter meltdown. So what people in Iran are afraid of is if the military goals are whatever, and they Trump and Netanyahu declare victory and leave, what happens to them? What happens to the people who had come out before or who want to change? To this point, I had Senator Chris Murphy on my program a week or so ago. The first time the senators were briefed several days into the war by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And many of them came out and said that they were pretty stunned because they asked that same question that you've just asked. What happens if people of Iran take up the call to change their regime after this military phase of this conflict?

28:01And those people are still in charge. What happens if the IRGC, the Islamic government is still in charge and they look pretty entrenched right now? What happens if they're still at what is your plan, Secretary of State, to protect, you know, and preserve a democratic uprising inside Iran? And they said they came out with no answers. There were no answers. So this is very, very dangerous territory for the people of Iran, I would say right now. As I say again, there are many in the diaspora and even many in Iran right now. At least some of those who were hearing from who hope that this bombing campaign will lead to their deliverance. But from here to there, right now doesn't look clear. I know you got to go in two minutes. Let me touch one separate but related thing. In 2023, a women's rights activist in Iran, August Muhammady won the Nobel Peace Prize. She remains imprisoned in Iran so little publicity about this in the United States.

29:04I saw that you contributed to a CNN story just last month about the Nobel Committee alleging that Muhammady has been assaulted in prison. And I want to play a short clip from a video Muhammady made with Amnesty International. Because from 2024, just before her latest imprisonment begins. I want to express my deepest gratitude to every Amnesty officer across all countries, especially Amnesty Iran. And most of all to you miss Agnes Colomar. You have to say for your relentless efforts, your work on Iran on my case on cases of other Iranian activists and Iranian political prisoners on executions in Iran and on ending gender apartheid has brought so much hope to me and others and my friends in prison.

30:07So, Christian, can you characterize what she meant there by the term gender apartheid and just say what she means to Iran 30 seconds? It's pretty self evident. There is a deeply misogynistic and often violent repression of women's rights in Iran, like across much of the Arab and Muslim world. But, you know, she's in prison because of her incredibly brave and consistent despite the attacks physical and verbal psychological pressure. She's under she consistently sticks to her credentials as a leading dissident and leading democracy activist and a leading women's rights activists. She was furloughed for medical reasons, but right as a start of this war she was brought back in again and she has been abused in prison. She's been, you know, calling to her family, according to the Nobel committee kicked and shoved and punched around. And unfortunately some in the opposition diaspora have cast aspersions on her too.

31:07And it's bizarre, but they believe that whoever's inside Iran should be calling for regime change and the return of Reza Palavi, which people might want, but you can't really do that from inside an Iranian prison. So, when you're actually, you know, walking the walk, talking the talk and suffering for what you believe in and the struggle you are leading on behalf of Iranian women. So, I've interviewed her, I've interviewed her children and I can only tell you that Iranian women are some of the most valiant committed intelligent and empathetic political dissidents that I've ever come across in my whole life. And I believe that, you know, if they got their full rights, Iran would be the most incredible country because unlike most of the other neighboring Arab Muslim states, Iranian women, despite the legal problems and despite all the other problems, have many more rights than any of the women in any of those US allies arrayed around the Gulf.

32:09So, this is an important paradox to remember. Christian Aminpoor, who holds the joint positions of CNN's Chief International Anchor and PBS host as her show Aminpoor as first on CNN International and then also on PBS as Aminpoor Company, which is where many of you probably see it in the United States. In New York, for example, that's 4 p.m. in midnight on Channel 13. Christian, we appreciate so much that you took some time for us today best to you. Thank you so much and thank you to your listeners too. Since WNYC's first broadcast in 1924, we've been dedicated to creating the kind of content we know the world needs. Since then, New York Public Radio's rigorous journalism has gone on to win a Peabody Award and a Dupont Columbia Award among others. In addition to this award-winning reporting, your sponsorship also supports inspiring storytelling and extraordinary music that is free and accessible to all.

33:09To get in touch and find out more, visit sponsorship.wnyc.org.