Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide; Interview with Palestinian Ambassador to the U.K. Husam Zomlot; Interview with "The Escalation Trap" Substack Author and University of Chicago Professor of Political Science Robert Pape. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 25, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Remember it all starts with they cannot have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That is exactly where progress was being made in negotiations when Trump went to war against Iran, says Norway's foreign minister. And he
joins me with the view from Europe suffering economic shocks and wanting this to end now.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): They were dragging me while I was undressed, with my hands and legs bound.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Horror stories from the West Bank, as settler violence spikes under a shield of impunity. I speak with the Palestinian ambassador to the
U.K.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT PAPE, AUTHOR, "THE ESCALATION TRAP" SUBSTACK AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: You're so confident of success,
strategic success, you don't have any backup plan to deal with the enemy lashing back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "The Escalation Trap." Political scientist Robert Pape tells Hari Sreenivasan this U.S. war may be headed towards strategic failure.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Donald Trump took the United States to war, and now he's trying to find a way out
of it as several thousand airborne troops and Marines head to the region. The U.S. president says he gave Iran a 15-point peace plan. But Iran
responded with its own plan, a list of five conditions for ending the war. And so, the bombardments continue, with Iran holding the economic sword of
Damocles over a whole region's head.
Europe is quite literally stuck in a quandary between supporting its most powerful ally and wanting to keep out of a war it rejects. While NATO's
secretary-general says Trump is acting to keep the world safe, Spain's prime minister is scathing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEDRO SANCHEZ, SPANISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): What have the promoters of this illegal war achieved? In my opinion, this is what they
have done. First, undermined international law, destabilized the Middle East, reignited conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon, buried Gaza under the
rubble, under rubble of oblivion and indifference. They brought insecurity to Gulf countries that until less than a month ago were safe, encouraged
nuclear programs in Pakistan and North Korea, and given Vladimir Putin more than 8 billion euros to finance his war and invasion in Ukraine thanks to
rising fuel prices and the lifting of sanctions also brought about by the U.S. administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Like Spain, Germany and Norway are also concerned the war is illegal, and given the current status, after nearly four weeks, certainly
they feel misjudged. The Norwegian foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, joined me from Oslo.
Foreign minister Espen Barth Eide, how are you? And welcome to the program. I ask you how you are because of this immense pressure that's been coming
on all nations, Europe included, with this war.
ESPEN BARTH EIDE, NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Well, thank you for asking. I mean, this is actually a very dangerous situation because this war does
not only create havoc in the Gulf and in the Middle East, but has very serious global consequences.
We're seeing the -- not only the rising price of energy, but also the shortages and, you know, the threats to supply. Also, on fertilizer, which
means food in the future, and to supply chains in general. So, this is really a situation that if it's allowed to continue, will be very bad for
the people in the region, obviously, who are most affected, but also undermine the global economy. So, I think this has economic and political
and security implications for everyone, which is why I really want this war to stop.
I really think it's time to find a diplomatic solution that all sides can live with. We have an Iranian regime, which has previously demonstrated its
ambition to have nuclear weapons. That should not happen. But I think that these things are best taken care of through going back to negotiations and
get some very firm agreements with very strong inspection mechanisms to make sure that Iran can never get the nuclear weapon.
I think that the current situation has moved into a stalemate that is just making the world more dangerous for everyone.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: As you know, President Trump has called upon Europe to help. He's variously said, you're ungrateful, you're cowards, you're this and
you're that. Norway has been to say, response is to stand up to that pressure and say, Norway will not do that. That was your prime minister.
Do you think the president has made a miscalculation? Do you believe that this war was not just not your war, but a general miscalculation?
EIDE: Well, I'm afraid that what we are seeing now is that at least there was a serious underestimation of the capacity of Iran to conduct a long-
term asymmetric counter campaign. Because, you know, the -- in a certain sense, Iran has the advantage of the underdog that it does not need full
spectrum dominance. It only needs to maintain a certain ability to threaten and challenge and create a fear for ships transiting the Hormuz Strait or
for the neighboring countries in the Gulf. And that will give them a certain advantage, which is hard to really take out by military means
without coming in on the ground, which I understand is unlikely to happen.
And let me just say, it's correct that we have said, like most European countries, that we are not going to enter the war and take part in the
fightings and military vessels, for instance. But we do want to be helpful in trying to see if there are other means by which we can encourage parties
to reopen in whole or in part the Hormuz Strait to see if we can get more responsible behavior, trying to ensure that at least certain products can
get through.
And also, of course, to see if there are ways to help towards a diplomatic settlement. I know that other countries are more engaged in that, but I
think it is really important now to understand that if this war continues, it will not only be a long war, but the consequences can actually last for
years because further destruction of important energy production facilities, for instance, the Ras Laffan LNG field in Qatar, it will take a
lot of time to repair what is already damaged.
And if there are more damages to either Gulf States or Iranian facilities, the consequences will not only be this year, but maybe years into the
future with very severe consequences. So, help, yes, but not with a military participation.
AMANPOUR: I think we do actually have to say that it was one of the participants of this war, Israel, that began the energy war by attacking
the past gas fields in Iran. And that's where we are now with this major energy war.
I want to ask you, because Europe is kind of caught, as some people always say, between a rock and a hard place, between wanting to protect your own
interests, which are currently being damaged by this war, and also wanting to, you know, be proper, secure members of the transatlantic NATO alliance.
You know, you haven't joined, but nonetheless, many European countries are actually facilitating parts of this war, whether it's the U.K., whether
it's Germany, using their bases. How much -- again, how much pressure are you all under? And with that question, Marco Rubio, secretary of state, is
coming to Europe to meet with the G7. I know you're not G7, but what do you expect that conversation to be?
EIDE: So, I hope that that conversation will be around trying to find out where we can have some landing zones, where this war can be brought to an
end in a proper manner, because what we all agree upon, and very strongly so, is that we have to ensure that Iran can never attain a nuclear weapon.
They don't have any yet. They were not around the corner in getting them either. And we know that from the JCPOA times, when there was a nuclear
agreement, but we still have to work together, preferably by diplomatic means and by agreements and inspection to ensure that that will not happen
in the future.
And so, there are many things to discuss beyond the actual military contributions. And we are, Norway is a country that takes NATO very
seriously. We are very committed to a stronger European defense inside the collective defense responsibilities of NATO. We believe in the
transatlantic bonds, but this particular war is not a NATO war. And there is no initiative either to make it a theme for NATO as such.
Individual members, yes. Some of them have a long-term base agreement with the US. They have facilitated certain use of those, but it's not the NATO.
These are not NATO decisions. These are individual decisions.
And here in Europe, the very large -- the main challenge that we have, it's what's going on in Ukraine with Russia, which is our neighbor, Norway's
neighbor in the North, and which is waging a legal and very dramatic war in Ukraine still. And last night there were massive air attacks all over
Ukraine. That war is going on.
[13:10:00]
And one of the consequences of the Iran war is that there is less attention to what's happening in Ukraine. And all the consequences is that one of the
countries that actually benefit from these high energy prices is Russia itself. So, they get more money to pay for more weapons to attack Ukraine.
So, it's all related.
And we would very much like to see that we can get some kind of face down of the war in Iran, get some proper settlement, including on the nuclear
issue, and then be able again to focus on what's seen from our perspective is a very, very key issue, which is how we can contain Russia, not only in
Ukraine, but also to prepare for a post-Ukraine war Europe that is safe and sound against further Russian aggression.
AMANPOUR: Well, what is the realistic hope for that? Because you've just laid out the danger of this distracting from that. And we know that, as you
said, Russia's war chest is being filled up and it's using this period to continue attacking Ukraine very viciously. How do you see the battlefield
there now? And what do you think is going to be the effect of this war distracting, not just attention, but resources from helping Ukraine, let's
say over the next month or two?
EIDE: So, I am really worried that if the war in the Gulf continues for months, that we will see a severe impact. You know, I mentioned the oil
price for Russia, benefit for Russia. I mentioned the lack of attention. You could also add that so much advanced military hardware is now being
spent in the war with Iran, that these were weapons that could have been put to use in defense of Ukraine. And Norway, along with many European
countries, were ready to pay for American weapons, to donate them to Russia, but now they will be less available. So, there's all kinds of
consequences.
That said, however, the battle -- the front, the military front, battlefront in Ukraine is quite static. Russia has not gained much lately.
Actually, Ukraine has had a few tactical advances into villages previously occupied by Russia. And it seems that we have a rather static situation on
the front, which is why we are now seeing an increased use of attacks on the deep, meaning that attacks on energy infrastructure in Ukraine, and
also some Ukrainian attacks deeper into Russia, exactly because there's not much more to get from the battlefront.
And hopefully this will take us to a situation where even Russia understands that this cannot go on forever, where they have to come to some
kind of a ceasefire and peace talks. And in order to make sure that Ukraine is as best prepared as possible, we both need to have a solid Western unity
behind Ukraine, but also continue to make sure that they have the military means to defend themselves until we get there. And thirdly, to prepare for
the post-war integration of Ukraine into Western structures, including European integration.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you to go back quickly, you said, you know, obviously the U.S. was surprised, Israel was surprised by Iran's reaction. Now, we're
getting information that the president of the United States appears to be getting very short, very select video montage on a daily basis to show him
what's happening in the war. And it tends to emphasize U.S. successes with comparatively little detail about Iranian actions. I know you don't know
the details, but what does that say to you?
EIDE: So, as you said, I don't know what information he gets. And I have not much to say about that specifically, but on a very general level, I
think that leaders in war really need to get as concrete and honest and unfiltered information as possible. You know, we have -- and the U.S. more
than anybody has excellent intelligence service. They have a lot of information available. It is very important that those who take the big
decisions are aware of how things are really going.
Because we have seen so many conflicts where the smaller party in military terms can use their inferior role almost as an advantage because they have
this, what I call this, this benefit of the underdog that you only need to maintain sufficient capacity to continue to create shocks or to create fear
of retaliation. And then you get much more out of your weapons than the attacker.
And I am -- I would be a little bit surprised if this has not been war game, because it -- you know, I think for most of us, it was a rather
natural development of things. We from Norway side said on the very first day on the 28th of February, that we fear that this would lead to a
regional escalation and that Iran would retaliate also against third parties in the region.
[13:15:00]
Because that, you know, I know has been discussed in previous rounds of conversations about what to do about Iran.
So, in a sense, although we very clearly condemned the attacks on third parties and civilian infrastructure, it is more or less what could have
been expected from a country like Iran.
AMANPOUR: Right, yes. Finally, I would like to ask you about the Middle East, the huge issue that rips the Middle East apart, and that is Israel-
Palestine. And you in Norway have had such, you know, important work trying to get peace processes.
So, you know, now on the West Bank, Israeli settlers are strategically consolidating control of Palestinian lands, even in areas that are meant to
be administered by the Palestinian Authority. Those are areas A and B. The settlers are displacing Palestinian communities, sometimes very violently,
and dividing the West Bank up, which goes right against the heart and the word of the Oslo Agreement.
Your foreign minister was instrumental in bringing that all together. Do you think it's totally dead now? Do you think that there literally is no
bringing it back and Gaza is still, you know, an unfinished business?
EIDE: No, I don't think it's over. I do think that, you know, this is the quintessential conflict in the Middle East, and it relates to all the other
tensions and conflicts we're having. They are separate, but all of them in one way or the other come back to the Israel-Palestine issue.
And you -- Christiane, you very correctly point out that while the world has had its focus on Gaza, for understandable reasons, for years now during
the Gaza War, a lot of bad things have happened on the West Bank, and now it is going into overdrive. It's worse than ever. Settler violence, settler
activity, you know, even supported by the Israeli government, allowing settlers to take full control of territories that, you know, legally is
Palestine and which even agreements that Israel has signed has recognized as to be controlled by Palestinians.
And remember, these are not the Palestinians of Hamas. This is the Palestinian, the moderate Palestinian administration, Fatah, and the people
who originally were PLO who are controlling these areas. They are the anti- Hamas. They are the opposite. They are the people who are ready to live side by side in peace with Israel.
So, undermining them, not only the territory, but also the key institutions of the Palestinian state is very dramatic because it's a clear violation of
U.N. principles and agreements that Israel and Palestine have signed. But it's also dangerous for Israel itself because in the long run, it could
leave more space for the extremists when they see no progress in a more peaceful approach.
So, I'm really worried about what's happening in the West Bank. And it's really important that we are not allowing, once again, the Palestinians to
be forgotten when something else happens in the neighborhood. And on top of that, we could mention what's happening in Lebanon, where it seems that we
are at the beginning of yet another very dramatic war there.
AMANPOUR: I mean, honestly, it looks dark, whichever way you look. Foreign Minister Barth Eide, thank you so much indeed for being with us.
EIDE: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: While Israel's war on Iran and the bombing and incursion into Lebanon continue, there are also serious developments in the occupied West
Bank. Violence against Palestinians by both settlers and security forces has skyrocketed since the October 7th attacks by Hamas, and they've risen
further since this war began.
Ten Palestinian civilians have been killed this month alone, and troubling reports continue to emerge about heinous abuse and aggressive evictions.
Israel's ambassador to the United States claims it's only a tiny minority perpetrating these acts, but says it is a serious problem for Israel's
reputation.
Meanwhile, in Gaza, a disarmament proposal has been submitted to Hamas by the Board of Peace, with Hamas expected to respond soon.
Now, Husam Zomlot is the Palestinian ambassador here in the United Kingdom and joins us in the studio. Welcome back to our program.
Just react to what the Israeli ambassador said, that it's only a tiny minority of people, nonetheless it really does hurt their reputation.
HUSAM ZOMLOT, PALESTINIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.K.: A tiny minority of people in Gaza, he means, or in the West Bank?
AMANPOUR: In the West Bank, committing these crimes.
ZOMLOT: No, this is a state-sponsored -- we shouldn't call it settler terrorism. This is a state-sponsored direct complicity by the army and
involvement by the Israeli army, as per U.N. reports, and this is a very organized terror campaign.
AMANPOUR: When you say state-organized, clearly the prime minister never condones this kind of stuff. I had the -- actually, let me just have what
he said. The former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, told me this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAFTALI BENNETT, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I have zero tolerance for any sort of illegal actions against the Palestinians and it's been
investigated, and I stand behind all investigations because Israel is a democracy with rule of law, and I insist the law abides. But to put it in
context, there is a huge amount of terror against Israelis as well, and it's tough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZOMLOT: He's lying. I mean, for a decade, with all this rising level of settler terrorism backed by his government, there was no one prosecution
for 10 years. Not one settler was brought to justice. And you know how many hundreds of Palestinians have been subjected to terror, violence and murder
at the hands of the settlers. So, no, this is a state-sponsored terrorism, straight and plain.
AMANPOUR: So, I -- the reason I got that answer out of him was because of a really, I said, a heinous crime that was committed by settlers this week
in the West Bank. There was a man, Abu al-Kebash, you obviously know the story, said settlers beat him, stripped him, zip-tied his genitals, and our
Jerusalem correspondent, Jeremy Diamond, spoke to him, and this is his testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUSAI ABU AL-KEBASH, SAYS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY SETTLERS (through translator): They beat me. They ties me up my legs, grabbed my belt, cut
it, as you can see. They cut it, and the boxers I was wearing. They zip tied my genitals while I was bound and continues to beat me. They dragged
me from there and then poured water over me and dirt.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: What was going through your mind when that was happening?
AL-KEBASH (through translator): I thought they were going to kill me. Beat me to death.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: What's your reaction to that?
ZOMLOT: This is just one example of many. And this is not just the last few weeks or months. It's been on for 80 years. Christiane, thank you for
having me back. But the last time I sat on this chair with you was on October 7th.
AMANPOUR: And I've had you back since.
ZOMLOT: On October 7th. And I warned the world through you and your program that Israel will use the events of the 7th of October to declare
and start a far greater attack and aggression against the Palestinian people, effectively warning that we will run the risk of genocide. And look
where we are today. Look.
And it is very important that we remember that we have been saying ever since that Palestine is not only the litmus test, but it's the crystal ball
for what is coming. Gaza has been flattened. Almost 2 million people, if not more. Most of them are in tents. No aid is getting in, restrictions.
Israel refuses any national or international presence in Gaza. It is only after chaos, disintegration, and it is now exporting this model to the
region. They are dropping leaflets in Lebanon telling them, we are doing to you what we have done in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: They're not just dropping leaflets. They've actually said it publicly. The prime -- defense minister said it publicly. Yes.
[13:25:00]
ZOMLOT: And therefore, this is one of the gravest moments of our history. But we should not just be discussing the current war with Iran.
AMANPOUR: Just while I have you on this issue, because I want to ask this issue, I had said that Bennett responded to that particular attack on al-
Kebash, but actually it was on the killing by the IDF of a family of four in a car. That's what I was asking him about then. But nonetheless --
ZOMLOT: Did they bring their soldiers who opened fire on that family to justice?
AMANPOUR: We're following it.
ZOMLOT: They did not. You know how many soldiers have -- you know there were British citizens murdered by Israeli soldiers all through the years.
Never once justice was served in the way it should be, as he claims, by a democracy.
But the conversation is not about this incident or that incident, the conversation is about an 80-year-old campaign of complete mayhem in the
region and of Israel wanting to reign supreme in the region.
AMANPOUR: As you know --
ZOMLOT: And Palestine was only the playground. Now, this playbook is being exported everywhere. And if we don't address this very long campaign, we
will be coming back to discuss the next war, not just the war with Iran.
AMANPOUR: Well, you know, I was just speaking just before you sat down to the Norwegian foreign minister, and there have been small periods of hope,
and tragically, like the Oslo process, they haven't gone anywhere. But I want to ask you about what you're talking about now, because you wrote for
The Economist, you called on Israel to stop land annexations in occupied Palestinian territories as this war is unfolding.
You write, a permanent transformation is unfolding in occupied Palestine. This is not accidental. It's a strategic decision by Israel to establish
regional dominance and deal a deadly blow to Palestinian statehood under the cover of war.
Play that forward to us. What does this look like? You're talking about every last Palestinian being, you know -- being pushed out of the occupied
West Bank. You're talking about Israel maybe reoccupying parts or all of Gaza. What does it look like in your, you know, view of the future?
ZOMLOT: The West Bank is being annexed full stop. Settler terrorism is organized to drive people out. Nakba 2.0, with the full backing of the
state, under the cover of war. The Israeli government is aiming at the national institutions, the Palestinian Authority, pushing it to almost near
financial collapse. In Gaza, they refuse any scenario whereby we bring about some sort of stability, that Gaza is an inseparable part of the state
of Palestine, united with the West Bank under one government.
Why are they doing that? Why are they doing that? Because Israel, since its establishment, wants to see failed states, chaos everywhere,
disintegration. It started the wars with Egypt, the wars with Jordan, with Syria, with Lebanon, with Iraq, and now with Iran. It's the same concept.
So, what they're doing in the West Bank, practically speaking, and in Gaza, is definitely erasure, acts of erasure everywhere, displacement and
replacement. And, of course, by exporting this to the outside world, they are enabled by Israel's friends to do so under the cover of war.
AMANPOUR: So, the Palestinian Authority, which recognizes Israel, which signed the Oslo Accords and is the internationally accepted Palestinian
entity, political entity, they are also being sort of sidelined, as the Norwegian prime minister told me. And that, he says, is a shame because
they are the ones, you are the ones, who actually would do, you know, peace and et cetera with Israel.
On the other hand, the Israelis are saying even now, and they've said it before, certainly when the war with Iran started or their war on Iran
started, that this is a once-in-a-generation lifetime chance to reorganize the Middle East, change the face of the Middle East, I think their words
are, in order to give Israel security. And I know you grimace, I know you do, but you did have Hezbollah firing into Israel.
You did have Hamas do what it did on October 7th. And these now can be seen as giant miscalculations because it's come back to, you know, terrorize
them and everybody. They've failed. And they are being, you know, Israel wants to make sure that they don't have the ability to attack them in the
future. What is the answer out of this?
ZOMLOT: Not aggression. Israel has been doing this for 80 years and it didn't work and it will never work. Netanyahu's definition of a new Middle
East is a definition of utter hegemony by Israel, complete devastation of the region that has not materialized and will never materialize. And it
didn't work and it will never work.
[13:30:00]
Netanyahu's definition of a new Middle East is a definition of utter hegemony by Israel, complete devastation of the region that has not
materialized and will never materialize. Of course, Iranian regime, we have issues with it, and the region does. Particularly its immediate neighbors,
the Arab Gulf countries.
But the Arab world, including the Arab Gulf countries, have chosen diplomacy, dialogue, re-establishing full diplomatic relations. But Israel
chose aggression, and it has been choosing aggression ever since. And you can see clearly what is Israel's interest in this. It's very clear. They
really want to undermine any possibility of any successful state.
The Arab world is very affected negatively. The Gulf is really paying a heavy price for this, as you are following. So, is the rest of the world,
from Texas to Shanghai, people feel the consequences of the Israeli- instigated war. I believe also there is now, we need to ask the question is, what is the American interest in this? What is the American interest in
this?
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm going to ask you, because it's a U.S.-Israel war.
ZOMLOT: It's clearly different.
AMANPOUR: So, do you have any dialogue? Do you have any dialogue with the United States at all on how to get at least Palestinian rights and
Palestinian security and to move forward? For instance, as we said leading into you, apparently there's a new phase in the, you know, Gaza situation
whereby the Board of Peace has presented a disarmament plan to Hamas and expects their response. What do you think will come out of that? And is
that the way to go?
ZOMLOT: Yes, the way to go is first to stop the annexation immediately, because this is an existential threat to us, the Palestinian people, and it
is an existential threat to regional and global security and stability. Number two, yes, we need to go back to the plan to stabilize the situation
in Gaza, to have Israel withdraw from Gaza, to have the Palestinian committee that was welcomed by us start managing Gaza, and to unite Gaza
and the West Bank together.
But also, we need to make sure that the U.S. interest is aligned with the region and the interest of the region. We need to press the brakes now.
This war has to stop, immediate ceasefire. Always civilians bear the brunt of such wars.
Number two, we need to bring back the guardrails that we have already, which is international law and international order. We must bring it back,
and we must also start really once and for all realizing that we have got to stop dealing with the symptoms. We must deal with the root cause of all
this, and the root cause of all this is the question of Palestine, a question of inalienable rights, a question of law, and a question of
accountability. Address the issue of Palestine, and you really have the biggest possibility for peace. Ignore it, and then you and I, Christiane,
will be discussing the next war.
And this is the realization that is now being spread all over the region and the world, and I believe the international community has enabled this
situation to fester for 80 years. It has -- the fact that Israel was allowed to do what it did to Gaza in the last two and a half years is
exactly what has prepared for what you see now.
AMANPOUR: Do you -- first of all, do you have any contact -- again, you are -- you and the Palestinian Authority are the legitimate representatives
of the Palestinian people. Do you have any contact with, let's say, the named envoy for the Gaza part of the Board of Peace initiative? Do you
think there's any hope left for a two-state solution?
ZOMLOT: Yes, and they came and visited us to Palestine. Some of our officials met them, including Mr. Mladenov, of course, and Tony Blair
before him, and the Palestinian Authority was absolutely supportive of any international presence and plan to stop Israel's mass murder and mass
destruction. And you saw that there was an announcement of the Board of Peace, but since then, guess who has been blocking it?
I mean, there is no such a thing as ceasefire. Since the announcement of the ceasefire, Israel has literally killed hundreds of Palestinians in
Gaza, including yesterday. Every day there are bombardments. These people are setting in tents, as we just described earlier.
And the most dangerous of all, that Israel refuses any international or national presence. They don't want this. I believe that part of Netanyahu's
calculation for starting a war with Iran was to derail even the Board of Peace. And I say even because the Board of Peace and the composition were
not perfect. I mean, we had so many reservations on it. We wanted to be primarily rooted in international law and international legitimacy, focus
on our rights. It does mention our right to self-determination and statehood. But yet even that, in my opinion, was refused indirectly by
Netanyahu.
[13:35:00]
So, everything has been put on hold while the people of Gaza are being starved again because there is such severe restriction and the Rafah
Crossing has been shut down again.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it's very troubling and there's a lot of pushback from your allies, actually, in the region. But as you said, Mr. Mladenov, the envoy,
laid out a framework last week. He said it requires one clear choice, full decommissioning by Hamas and every armed group with no exceptions and no
carve-outs. In this season of hope, may those responsible make the right choice for the Palestinian people.
How do you assess that and do you agree that, I assume you agree because Fatah is not Hamas, Fatah is your group? Do you think they will
decommission and should they?
ZOMLOT: Well, we want to see Gaza free from Israeli occupation. Remember, Israel is in military control of 53 percent of Gaza until now, squeezing
the 2.3 million in the remaining and by the way, expanding the so-called yellow line, squeezing these people more and more while again, again,
slaving them and starving them. We want to see a solution, yes, and we have been cooperating with the entire world. But the decommissioning needs to
happen also in the terror militias in the West Bank. And it needs --
AMANPOUR: Are you connect to those now?
ZOMLOT: The terror militias in the West Bank, the Jewish terrorism in the West Bank, those people who are armed to their teeth and are storming our
communities in all over the West Bank, in Al-Khalil, Hebron, around Jerusalem, around Ramallah, in Nablus, in Jenin, in Tulkarem, in Salfit,
everywhere. Those militias must be disarmed immediately and the Israeli army must do, if it considers itself an occupying power, which it does not
by the way, as you know, annexation is happening, but it has to protect the civilian population. So, the concept of decommissioning must happen
absolutely right across the board.
What we are saying to Mladenov, all the people around the world, we want to put back the guardrails of international law, but international law must be
applied equally, enough the selectivity. We pinpoint one small issue of the whole picture and then we forget about the actual issues.
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Husam Zomlot, thank you very much for being here. And actually, we will follow this up with the head of the United Nations
Humanitarian Organization tomorrow. So, we will follow this up as well. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: An escalation trap, that is where our next guest says the United States is headed in its Iran war. Robert Pape is a professor of political
science and an expert on global security who argues that the major decapitation of Iran's leadership failed to immediately break the regime
while upping the pressure for more force, including raising the specter of a ground war.
And he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the difference between the initial tactical successes and a long-term strategic success.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Robert Pape, welcome back to the program. You recently launched a Substack
called "The Escalation Trap." First of all, what does that mean?
ROBERT PAPE, AUTHOR, "THE ESCALATION TRAP" SUBSTACK AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: "The Escalation Trap" were a set
of frameworks I've been developing for 30 years. I started developing these when I taught for the U.S. Air Force to help people understand what's in
the middle between when bombs hit target and a political outcome.
[13:40:00]
Everybody understands that there's military action and then some political end state they want. What is that middle? They're escalation dynamics. It's
where politics and the military interact. And that is what is so special about the escalation trap. And in this particular case, when I set it up
just before the bombing started in the Iran war, I called it a trap, not just escalation dynamics.
And I did that on purpose because I laid out the stages, one, two, three, of the likely escalation trap that we were getting ourselves into. And with
each stage, you lose more control. So, the illusion of control is what helps set off the escalation trap in stage one. Precision bombs hit
targets, kill leaders, but that leads to then strategic failure. Regime becomes more aggressive, more dangerous. Don't get the enriched uranium.
Then double down, regime becomes more aggressive, still takes horror moves. Now, that's stage one and stage two. And I laid that out before the bombs
even fell. And here we are with the escalation trap, the teeth closing.
SREENIVASAN: In a way, stage one is alluring, right? If we can achieve our goals from 20,000 feet up without putting a boot on the ground and go in
and out quickly. But how is it automatic that it goes from stage one to stage two? How does the trap kind of get sprung?
PAPE: What happens is that add to what you just said, which was excellent, one more point, which is you're so confident of success, strategic success,
you don't have any backup plan to deal with the enemy lashing back.
So, once you are so confident, and then it's in really with precision bombs and when you have generals with stars saying, this will be destroyed 90
percent plus probability here, my goodness, this is true. These are not false statements, but it's the illusion of control. And that illusion then
leads to downplaying worst case scenarios. And it's not unique to President Trump. This one may be the worst escalation trap ever, by the way, with
smart bombs.
But what happened, say, for example, with Kosovo, March 99, the Clinton administration, three-day air war, tried to take down, damage the Milosevic
regime in Serbia, try to help the pro-democracy movement in Kosovo, this Republic in the former Yugoslavia. And what does Milosevic do? He launches
30,000 troops and ethnically cleanses half of Kosovo. That's 800,000 plus civilians, kills 3,000. And there was no army at the time. That three-day
air war was the worst case. And I know because I talked to the people who planned it. They did not even imagine what would be the worst case.
What we see here is taking Hormuz. It's not so much there wouldn't have been some mention of that in the briefings to Trump. That's not really
quite right. It's the illusion of control. It's President Trump and others around his circle saying, my goodness, we will not just have the bombs hit
a target, we control, we will dominate. They wouldn't dare take Hormuz. Well, they did, they got it. Now, they control more oil than we do.
SREENIVASAN: Is there a difference here? Can you spell out for our audience kind of, was this tactically a success versus strategically a
failure, or kind of what's the difference? Parse that out.
PAPE: Yes. So, it's very important to understand that when bombs hit targets, they destroy the facility, they destroy the communications of
leaders and they kill leaders. That's tactical success. That's what our military is the best in the world at. I've taught our military. I've taught
the best pilots in the Air Force, and they put bombs on targets better than anybody else.
What's happening is once the bomb hit the target, then how do you get to the political outcome, the strategic success? That's the stages of
escalation where politics comes in. Bombs hit the target and now suddenly politics inside of the target country, both the regime and the society
change. So, all those pre-war trends you had, all that intel that was, you have like SITK, all these fancy words here for the top-secret intel. None
of that now is still the same because the politics is changing literally with the dropping of the bomb.
[13:45:00]
And that is where I -- my work has come in to show that for over a hundred years, when you bomb leaders, air power alone has never toppled a regime
because what it does is it changes politics inside of the target, makes the regime more likely, the new leaders, more likely to fight back and be
aggressive, makes even the pro-democracy movements gun shy about supporting the bomber, the 800-pound gorilla of the United States who's doing all
this.
And what you end up with then is the possibility of lashing back, lashing back. And in this case, that always meant horizontal escalation, the GCC
countries, which again, President Trump has said, we didn't think they'd hit the GCC countries. Well, this is just like the Clinton administration
didn't think they would cleanse the coast of ours and worse than that, they could take the Straits of Hormuz.
So, unlike Serbia, this is likely going down as the worst catastrophe of the escalation trap, we have seen with air power in history.
SREENIVASAN: So, we've had these moments where each side has now escalated because of what the other did, what the other perceives the first one did,
et cetera. But there was a moment when the president on February 28th, he told Iranians, he said, take over your government, it will be yours to
take. Is there any example in history where an air campaign has led to a citizen uprising to take power that's been successful?
PAPE: The answer is no, not a single case in over a hundred years. So, my book, "Bombing to Win," covers every air campaign from World War I here.
And then also many articles I've published in Foreign Affairs in probably about 40 cases, we're over 40.
Now, this is rare. Rarely do you get in anything, much less military operations, literally a hundred percent of a pattern, but that is what you
have here. And what did we see in the case of Iran? Was Iran likely to be an exception to this rule? For example, you might say, no, there's
something exceptional here. Well, in the middle of January, Iran murdered some 20 to 30,000 of the protesters as they took to the streets.
So, what the Iranians showed was their security forces were both plenty capable and plenty willing to be incredibly brutal here. So, when President
Trump is asking those protesters to come up and to rise up, we need to understand he's playing with other people's money. He's like a gambler
playing with other people's money, other people's lives here. The people who have to take the risk are the Iranians who just saw 20 to 30,000 bodies
pile up in the streets. This is pretty difficult here.
And now, on top of it, president -- the air campaign is imposing all kinds of costs. Now, there's all kinds of disruption to the economy. That price
is being paid by the Iranian people, not by the leaders. And we can say, well, they'll blame their own government for this. They're never going to
blame their own government for this. They're blaming the people doing the harm. They're going to blame America and Israel.
SREENIVASAN: So, what happens? How does this escalation play out where now you've got the entire neighborhood, so to speak, involved? Iran has lobbed
missiles at, you know, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. So, the Emirates are kind of on edge. And then you've got kind of, you know, flight paths being diverted
over countries. And of course, absolute bottleneck and chokehold of global oil flowing back and forth.
PAPE: And that point you made, we're heading to stage three of the trap, which will be when the trap really closes. And we're likely in for months
long war here. And so, why is that? It's because as I've been laying out in stage two, there's not just the tip for tad that is going on, but the
Strait of Hormuz. That's what's special about this case.
See, for 50 years, America's number one goal in the Middle East has been to prevent an oil hegemon in the Middle East, not Israel. Israel maybe could
help with this, but Israel wasn't number one. Preventing oil hegemon.
What is an oil hegemon? One country, whether it's the Soviet Union in the Cold War, Iraq, or now Iran controlling the oil in the Middle East. That's
the Persian Gulf. That's the Strait of Hormuz.
After -- now, Iran has never been an oil hegemon before. Now, it is. And that 20 percent of the world's oil is more than the 16 percent America
produces. So, now they are in charge of oil prices more than anybody else. And they're leveraging that for geopolitical gain, let's say the Indians
and so forth.
[13:50:00]
They're also making money. They've made about a billion and a half dollars so far here on this oil. The money is in Chinese banks, so we can't go take
it out. And if this goes on for another six weeks, another six months, they're an oil hegemon with all that nuclear capability. The balance of
power is really going to change here.
The other military shoe to fall, which is stage three, is the ground operations. Those Marines are moving. The 82nd Airborne is preparing. And
this would be stage three. This is the threshold of stage three. They're not there yet. It'll be another 10 days, 14 days before these beginning
forces are in place.
So, in that period of time, we're going to see a lot of back and forth. I'm hoping we'll find a way out so we don't cross stage three. But if we cross
stage three, politics will change again. This isn't just about military action. When those Marines hit the beaches, many will die. When they die,
many who are Trump supporters will double down their support. They don't want to leave. They don't want to say these people died for us and now
we're going to abandon them.
SREENIVASAN: Now, for the record, the president has said, look, last week, I'm not putting troops anywhere. And if I was, I certainly wouldn't tell
you. Is there a way to withdraw from this without boots on the ground?
PAPE: Well, there's still diplomatic option here, but I think the price is going up high and I'm not sure President Trump will pay the price. You see,
on Feb 27, before the first bomb fell, there was, Iran was willing to have a deal. And this was being explained to Trump in the Oval Office by his
negotiators. And the deal was Iran would keep the 3.5 percent enriched uranium. Trump said, no deal, he's going to do the bombing.
Well, now Iran -- because it controls -- it's more powerful, it's not weaker. It's going to want more. So, it's going to want the 3 percent
enriched uranium. And what I've been saying in the media the first week is they're going to want the oil sanctions lifted. Well, Scott Bessent just
lifted the oil sanctions. So, they've already got the 3.5 percent they're going to want. And now, they already got the oil sanctions. They're going
to want more. And what is that more? Probably military containment of Israel.
SREENIVASAN: You know, look, on the one hand, the president and the administration said that we had, quote, "obliterated" the nuclear
capability and the facilities in Iran. And then before this campaign, that was also in part the justification that we want to really prevent them. But
I mean --
PAPE: Yes. That's right. So, what's happened -- so, I've modeled the bombing of Iran for 20 years. Americans are going to bomb Fordow and Natanz
because the Israelis can't do that. They don't have the air power to be able to take out Fordow. So, we are going to take out Fordow. And when we
do, we disable the industrial facility, but we don't get the nuclear material.
And on top of that, the IAEA is never brought back in. Iran's not going to just open this back up to onsite inspection, give it up, and so forth.
They're angry. And we saw that right away, even though President Trump declared, obliterated the program, he began negotiating with Iran again.
Why? Because the nuclear material. So, my analysis was always then, about a year later, you would panic. That dispersed material, you'd never really
know if it was being fashioned into a nuclear weapon or a radiological bomb. So, you would do regime change. Bombing for regime change was always
stage two.
I said, this is how America will talk itself into the regime change war, which they have resisted for decades. They will first start by bombing
Fordow. And that's exactly what happened. And that's why I could publish the stages of the escalation that we're going through days before we did
the bombing on February 28th. That's why I was confident what the target set would be. I'm confident of this because this was always, always the
stages you would go through once you knocked out Fordow in June. You knocked out the facility, not the enriched uranium. And it's always about
the enriched uranium.
SREENIVASAN: University of Chicago, Professor of Political Science, Robert Pape, and author of "The Escalation Trap" Substack, thanks so much for
joining us.
PAPE: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, a hero who stopped a terrorist attack with a hug. Today, Nathan Newby received the George Medal for Bravery from King Charles
at St. James's Palace here in London. But he says he was just in the right place at the right time on January 20th, 2023, when he prevented a lone
wolf terrorist from detonating a bomb at a British hospital.
[13:55:00]
Newby was a patient at the time who had stepped outside for some air, noticing a man acting strangely. He went over to see if he was OK before
realizing this man had a bomb. Newby managed to talk Mohammad Farooq out of committing an atrocity at the maternity ward by spending hours listening to
him. He said the would-be attacker opened up to him and eventually asked for a cuddle before telling him to phone the police before he changed his
mind.
Farooq was jailed last year for 37 years for taking the homemade pressure cooker bomb to the Leeds hospital with the intention to kill. Nathan Newby
demonstrated the power of an ordinary citizen to care enough to step in and to act with kindness and empathy to save so many lives that day.
And that is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
