>> Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour & Co.

Here's what's coming up.

Iran endures its heaviest night of Israeli and American bombing.

We go to Tehran for the latest.

Then, can Iranians take back their country and restore democracy?

Iranian activist Mehdi Mahmoudian speaks to me from there.

Also ahead, as the war spreads and engulfs more countries in the Middle East, I speak to America's former ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro.

Plus, this marks a dangerous expansion of presidential power in the US.

Michel Martin speaks with former George W. Bush speechwriter and Atlantic staff writer David Frum.

[music] Amanpour & Co.

is made possible by Committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

- Welcome to the program, everyone.

I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

It is day seven of Israel and America's war on Iran.

After the heaviest night of bombardment so far, Tehran residents describe the city of nearly 10 million as a ghost town.

Last night first they hit several other places like Gandhi and Vinok then around 8 at night when they struck first Suddenly the power in these buildings went off even then thank God we got ready Then when the next Rex came we heard as if something was falling then we came down the stairs We went to the basement when we came out we saw people all around bloodied and a man and a woman, blood spilling down their head.

The death toll has climbed above 1,200 people according to state media, as civilian sites, including schools and hospitals, have been hit.

It's a war without clearly defined objectives and no sense of when or what might end it.

President Trump, for instance, today said there will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender.

Speaking on Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had said this.

We were ready for this war even more than the previous war.

So you can see the quality of our missiles, how much they are upgraded after the last war because we learned lots of lessons.

We are prepared for any other eventuality, even a ground invasion.

Our soldiers are prepared for any scenario.

When I said we are waiting for them, it didn't mean that we are waiting for continuation of the war.

No, but we have prepared ourselves to confront with any scenario, with any eventuality, any possibility, and we know that we can handle that.

Correspondent Fred Pleitgen and his photojournalist and producer, Claudia Otto, are in Tehran, the first US team there since the start of the war.

And a note, they're operating only with the permission of the Iranian government.

While anti-government protesters are off the streets trying to avoid retribution, the government is also allowing CNN to see crowds of its supporters.

Iran's leadership has gathered thousands of people here to Tehran after Friday prayers to voice their anger about the US and Israel's bombing campaign across the country, but of course also to mourn Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

And thousands of people have indeed turned out here.

At the same time, we have to keep in mind this is just a small snapshot of Iran's society.

And the people who come to Friday prayers here in Tehran usually are political, conservative and religious hardliners.

At the same time, it does show that the government here is still able to mobilize masses.

We believe that if we are killed, we are martyrs, meaning that whether we stand by the revolution or become martyrs, both are a victory for us.

The blood of our martyr leader has been shed, but his path continues.

With these killings and these martyrdoms, they will not achieve greatness and they will not be able to take even the smallest piece of our land.

All this is happening of course as the US and Israel continue their massive bombing campaign not just here in Tehran in the vicinity but indeed in the entire country.

The US says that it's hitting military positions and trying to hit Iran's religious and also political leadership while the Iranians say at this point in time they are not willing to negotiate with the United States and they also say that they have a missile supply and drones to carry out military operations for an extended period of time.

So this is the Gandhi Hospital here in Tehran which was pretty badly damaged after an airstrike.

It seems as though a different building was struck in the vicinity but then this building also was damaged very badly.

I spoke to the head of Iran's Red Crescent about this.

Here's what he had to say.

Can you imagine if you were hospitalised in one of the wards here while it was attacked, how would you feel?

The people on the ground who feel these airstrikes, who hear these airstrikes, hear the jets overhead, of course for them it's a really, really difficult time to go through.

Fred Pleitgen reporting from Tehran.

President Trump now says he's not concerned whether Iran becomes a democracy.

He said he simply wants a leader who will treat the United States and Israel well, even suggesting it could be another religious leader.

Democratic activists inside Iran have been mostly jailed, especially since the last freedom uprising was crushed.

One of them is Mehdi Mahmoudian, an Iranian political dissident who was released just last month.

And we spoke to him in Tehran just hours before last night's heavy bombing.

Later he told us that was terrifying.

But here's our conversation from just before >> Welcome to our program from Tehran.

I can't tell you how pleased we are to have you.

Can you just tell me how it is for you, what it is like, the bombing, how do you feel about it?

>> What happened in the streets of Tehran and after the war in Tehran brought out two different feelings in us.

One was a sense of joy that those who had played a role in suppressing the people, those who had killed thousands of people in the streets, or had ordered massacres were killed and were no longer there to continue the repression.

On the other hand, we were sad that our country had been invaded and the countries had attacked our country based on their own interests.

And these feelings can be easily seen on the faces of the people.

Both joy at the death of the dictator and sadness that the war had begun and that it would probably bring decades of suffering to Iran.

You've been imprisoned by this regime and you've spoken about the cruelty of Khamenei, who you call the dictator, and you have written with others a letter against him about the crackdown.

Are you glad that he is dead and do you want and believe that the American military, the Israeli military, can liberate your country?

I'm not happy about anyone's death.

I'm happy that tyranny has been destroyed, but I'm not happy about the death of any human being.

But I wish there was an opportunity for these tyrants to be tried in court and held accountable for the crimes they committed against the Iranian people.

What makes me happy is the destruction of tyranny, not the tyrant.

America has proven in recent years and in the past few decades that it acts more based on their own interests than for democracy and freedom.

As in Iraq in 1990 and during the first Persian Gulf War, they left Saddam alone with his own people.

And during the 13 years that Saddam was in power, he killed several hundred thousand people and displaced several million people from his own country.

And in Afghanistan, after 20 years of war and the killing of tens of thousands of people in the war, America abandoned Afghanistan and left it at the disposal of the Taliban, and the people are living with the Taliban again.

My concern about this is that America will bring this calamity upon the Iranian people again, and we will enter into greater darkness from now on.

In addition, in all recent cases, war has never been able to bring democracy, and if a new tyranny is to replace this tyranny, all these civil and democratic struggles of the people over the past hundred years will practically disappear and be wasted.

Do you think, Mehdi Imam Udian, that there is a possibility to change your regime, and how do you think it should happen?

Who should be leading the change?

In these struggles of the last 20 years, I was in prison for at least 9 years.

And I hoped that I and all my friends and comrades in Iran, who are fighting to confront tyranny, and replace it with a democratic system, we hoped that we could establish the system with the help of civil society and the Iranian people.

Today, I also hope that America and its allies will allow the fate of Iran to be determined by the Iranian people themselves, and allow us to determine our own fate by stopping the war of attrition.

But as you know, you tried to do that, and your uprising was brutally crushed.

Yes, many struggles are often suppressed, but governments cannot continue to suppress forever, especially governments that attach inefficiency and incompetence to their work.

It is clear that they suppress.

It is clear that they commit crimes.

But if we were to think that a government is going to last forever, we should think that, for example, the pharaoh's government lasted for thousands of years.

All authoritarian governments will come to an end, but what is important is what government will replace this government at the end.

If the revolution takes place militarily, as America wants to do, there is no guarantee that democracy will prevail, freedom will prevail.

But with a democratic transition, with a strong society, we can be sure that after passing from an authoritarian system to a democratic system, we will reach a successful transition, and a bright horizon will occur.

But war is far less likely to bring us that bright horizon.

Can you tell me what the atmosphere is in Tehran right now?

Almost all the people are in their homes.

Many of the incidents that are happening and the buildings that are exploding, I am very happy that the institutions of oppression are being destroyed.

Just as they have humiliated the people in these years, they themselves are being humiliated and killed.

And the people do not think much about their future.

Of course, they are happy right now, because they can see the humiliation of the Islamic Republic, the humiliation of those who have humiliated them.

With all those slogans and bragging without support in the streets, they brought the country to this point.

These days, 50 or 100 people walk in the streets chanting slogans in the style of 1400 years ago.

And they are causing more fear among the people so that the people do not come out.

Mehdi Mahmoudian, are you worried that just by talking to us in this way, you might get re-arrested and put into jail when the authorities can do that?

I am not worried because they will definitely do this.

I have been arrested nine times at my workplace and at my home, and the Islamic Republic will probably do this again.

I have been arrested seven times since 2008.

I was arrested in a prison in the city centre when I was 20 in the year 2000, which has now become a museum.

I was even executed by hanging.

They put a four-legged stool under my feet and threw a noose and hit me under the four-legged stool and because the noose was loose, I fell to the ground.

Since then, I have been arrested nine times, either at home or at my workplace, and I've also been to prison and to court several times and introduced myself.

In any case, they do this.

But speaking out, I think that what I'm getting is useful for my people and for my homeland.

And if the cost is that I go to prison, it is okay.

Many young people, thousands of people in Iran, have been killed in recent months and years, all of whom were dearer and more noble than me.

You are also co-writer, along with the director Jafar Panahi, of a film called It Was Just an Accident, which has been nominated for an Oscar.

Now, this is a story of former prisoners who kidnapped a man who they found on the outside, who they believe they recognized as one of their prison torturers.

What do you want to say about those who were tortured and those who are the abusers and the torturers?

We tried to say in this film that the cycle of violence must stop somewhere.

Somewhere, we must stop this cycle of violence, as people who have paid the price and suffered harm.

If we, like those interrogators, inflict violence like that structure of the Islamic Republic, it won't make much difference to them.

The injured person will be replaced with the victim, and the victim will be replaced with the torturer.

What we had to convey with this message was, first, to say that we want to stop this cycle of violence.

And second, that we basically recognize the torturer, the one who inflicts harm by force.

And he should be tried as the perpetrator.

But what needs to be stopped is the structure in which someone gives himself the right to torture.

Just finally, are you optimistic about the future when you talk about change and all the democracy and freedom that you and your fellow activists have been working for in and outside of prison?

Do you think change can come from within, or do you think an outside opposition leader or figure has to come in and be a transition?

You know, the name of Reza Pahlavi is being raised quite a lot.

What do you think is the modality of change for you?

Currently, one of the obstacles to democracy in Iran is that political activists inside the country have been discredited by the Islamic Republic and some of Mr.

Pahlavi's supporters.

And Mr.

Pahlavi himself has not been able to form a coherent force inside the country that could seize power or act for power in times of crisis.

But we, the Democrats and Republicans inside the country, have made many efforts in this regard.

Both those in prison and those outside, including the Group of 17 and the Republican Solidarity Council, have tried to talk and negotiate with the officials of the Islamic Republic and foreign officials so that we can provide a less costly transition from the current situation and find a solution to save Iran from the current situation.

Are you optimistic about the future now or not?

I don't want to talk about despair.

I am hopeful.

But the experience we have from the U.S.

attacks in recent decades and the aggressions that the U.S.

has committed against various countries in the Middle East does not give a clear outlook.

But I assure you that we will all do our best as part of the Iranian people, part of Iranian civil society, part of political activists inside the country, together with the friends we have abroad.

Mehdi Mahmoudian, thank you so much for talking to us so frankly from a nation under war and calling for change as you are doing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Now, for Israel, this is actually a two-pronged war.

In Lebanon, the IDF is hitting Hezbollah targets as well as in Iran with hundreds of strikes around the Lebanese capital.

Israel has ordered the evacuation of entire Beirut neighborhoods and other parts of the country.

Thousands of people have fled and there is panic and large traffic jams as many try to get out.

Matthew Chance has more from there.

OK, we've got to go because they said there's been a warning from the Israelis that there could be a strike coming in.

So we've got to get out of here, Alex.

I don't know, but we need to get out.

OK, can you hear me alright?

Yes.

But we've just been trying to film at this location here in Dahir.

And we've been told to move away quickly now.

People were showing us their phones saying, "Look, there's a warning coming in."

"Go around!

Go around this guy!"

We've come into what is the most dangerous part of the Lebanese capital, which is a very important stronghold of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia group.

It's the place where Israel has been focusing, and you can hear the gunshots outside there, that Israel has been focusing its activity, its intensive campaign of airstrikes against the Hezbollah group.

That's often, we're told, a warning to local residents who don't have cell phones or don't have that communication, to tell them there may be an Israeli strike incoming.

So we're going to get out of here.

I mean, this chaos that we're getting a glimpse of in South Beirut.

It's all happening, remember, because in the hours after the Iranian supreme leader was killed last weekend in those US and Israeli airstrikes in Iran, Hezbollah, which hadn't struck at Israel since 2024, fired rockets and drones across the border into Israel.

And this has been the response.

Israel is absolutely pounding South Beirut, forcing thousands of people out of their homes, and really dragging Lebanon into a conflict that many Lebanese tell us they're not ready for and they do not want.

Alright well, Dahiya and the surrounding areas has hundreds of thousands of residents and we were in a long traffic jam I can tell you trying to get out of there.

Israel has also ordered the evacuation of vast areas of southern Lebanon nearer to the Israeli border to make way for military action there as well, and of course causing a mass displacement of people now trying desperately to escape the intensifying line of fire.

Matthew Chance reporting there from Lebanon.

The war in the Middle East is expanding.

Now Russia is entering the fray and aiding Iran's war effort by providing intelligence on US military targets.

That's according to sources.

So where does this all go?

Dan Shapiro served as President Biden's special liaison to Israel on Iran, having previously been also US ambassador there under President Obama.

And he's joining us from Amman, Jordan, having just left Israel.

Welcome to the program, Ambassador.

Thanks, Christiane.

Good to be with you.

Let me just ask, you just saw, you know, a sense of the feeling of what's happening in Lebanon.

You were in Tel Aviv when all of this unfolded.

You were there with the Iran retaliation as well.

Just describe a little bit what you experienced in the early, I guess, the first few days of the war.

On the first day, there were probably 13, 14, maybe 15 sirens that forced people in central Israel, I was in Tel Aviv, to go to the shelters.

And each day there were slightly fewer and they were spread slightly further apart.

Maybe on the last day I was there about six times did we hear sirens.

And so it's a serious threat.

Obviously there were two deadly strikes of Iranian ballistic missiles that killed about 10 people, one in Tel Aviv, one in Beit Shemesh.

People take the threat seriously.

But also it's pretty clear that the Israeli air defenses and missile defenses combined with U.S.

assets that buttressed theirs have been fairly successful in defeating the incoming missiles.

And on the ground in Iran or from the air in Iran, the Israeli and the U.S.

Air Forces are trying to hunt the launchers and probably having some success, which accounts for the diminishment of the number and the frequency of those missiles.

But it's still scary.

Obviously, it's still been deadly.

And it's not over.

Now, when you just had your reporter from Lebanon highlight what Lebanese are living through, that's because Hezbollah decided to join.

-As he explained.

As he explained.

So, let me ask you, then -- I need to ask you -- because this is a first of its kind -- cooperation on every level -- intelligence, military activity -- between the U.S.

and Israel.

A, were you expecting that kind of development in the both -- you know, in their joint militaries?

And are you concerned of the expanding war?

No matter how it's happening, are you concerned?

And do you think it's spilling over in a way that will be very difficult to rein back in?

>> So, first of all, there's no question this is an extraordinary combined joint campaign conducted by, you know, two very talented militaries with excellent technology, excellent intelligence and excellent interoperability.

And it's the product of years and years of building of relationships and drilling and training and sharing intelligence, and then a progressive series of joint efforts to first defend Israel from Iranian attacks in 2024, and to support and then join the Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities last June.

And then finally, this one, which is really the full manifestation of those efforts.

And it's having a serious effect.

There's no question that Iran is overmatched by the Israeli and U.S.

military's combined forces.

But they have been able to land blows.

I mentioned the ones in Israel.

They've launched hundreds of missiles and drones into the Gulf states and caused a significant amount of damage.

And they may overwhelm or deplete the air defenses of those countries.

And so there is risk the longer this goes on that if Iran can sustain its ability to fire, that they can cause more chaos, they can cause more casualties, they can cause more disruption, economic disruption.

We're seeing oil prices, I think, today up to $90 a barrel.

We're seeing markets dip.

We're seeing oil shipments be delayed and other products be delayed.

So there is risk of expanding impacts of this war, not just in the region, but even to people elsewhere in the world.

- Let me ask you, because clearly then it's not in everybody's or anybody's interest really to have this go on endlessly.

Do you see an exit plan from your own country, a strategy, a rational goal that you can coalesce around?

And do you think the U.S.

and Israel have exactly the same goals?

I'm not sure they have exactly the same goals.

Remember, Israel had highlighted the risk of Iran's ballistic missile threat after the June war last year, when quite a number of those missiles did penetrate the air defenses, caused significant damage in Israel and was planning to deal with that problem sometime this year.

Then you had the protests in January in Iran that were crushed by the Iranian regime.

We just heard your previous guest talk about the -- very eloquently, movingly, about the risks that Iranians have been willing to take to put their lives on the line for freedom.

So that became another factor in President Trump's threats or declarations that he would have the back of the protesters became a factor in this.

When the war began a week ago, I thought we might hear, or I would have liked to have heard, a very clear and cogent and consistent strategy from the president describing strategic objectives that could be achieved, some sense of how long it would take to achieve them, at what cost, and how to mitigate the risk.

Unfortunately, he and his cabinet officials have been very inconsistent.

They've talked about regime change, and then they've backed off from regime change.

Just today, though, the president said he wants unconditional surrender.

He wants to pick the new leader of Iran.

They've talked about the nuclear facilities still needing to be dealt with from last June.

They've talked about the ballistic missile threat that I mentioned earlier, which was probably Israel's focus.

So we don't really know what the strategy is.

We don't really know what the definition of an endgame is.

My suspicion is that President Trump will decide at some point that the combination of the market chaos, the economic risks, the depletion of air defenses among various partners, particularly in the Gulf, and maybe even the running down of US munitions that might be needed elsewhere, including in the Indo-Pacific at some point, lead him to find a way to claim victory.

And he can.

He can say, "We defeated the Iranian leadership.

We killed the supreme leader.

We badly damaged their ballistic missile threats and their nuclear capabilities."

He has the ability to do that at any time, and my suspicion is he'll do that within a matter of days.

Whoa, within a matter of days.

Okay, because he himself has said, and his cabinet secretaries, that it could last several weeks.

But you're right, there's quite a lot of shifting rationales.

So I want to ask you, you talked about the Iranian people and President Trump's stepping back.

Clearly, the Iranian people, and they've demonstrated over and again, want an end to this regime.

You just heard my guest speak so courageously on that from inside Tehran, under war.

It's a big risk what he just did, but he laid out what the Iranian people want.

So when the President of the United States moves away from saying, you know, "Rise up and seize your institutions and we'll help you," instead saying, "I want to choose the next leader," instead saying, "I don't really --" I'm kind of paraphrasing, but he said, "I don't really care whether it's democracy or not, as long as it's friendly to us, to Israel, et cetera."

What do you think that means?

Can he choose the next leader?

I think whoever is advising the president, or maybe it's just him leading to his own conclusions, who thinks that he will have the ability to pick the leader of Iran, much as he seems to have done in Venezuela when Maduro was removed, is really not understanding Iran's regime, which is still in place, even though it's been decapitated, or Iranian society.

I don't think this is what Iranians want, and I'm not sure they would trust him to choose somebody from the current regime.

That's kind of what he indicated, and that is the Venezuela model that would simply be good enough for his concerns.

Look, let's be clear about this regime.

It's been a terrible, bloody regime.

It has oppressed the Iranian people for decades.

It has spread mayhem and terror around the region.

You can understand why Israelis want very much to see the end of this regime, because all the terrorist proxies it sponsors have fired thousands, tens of thousands of rockets and missiles into Israel over the years.

You can understand why everybody wants to see that happen.

When I said before that I expect the president to take the off ramp within days, I should have been caveat of that by saying I never try to read his mind and he has been all over the place here.

But a logical thing to do would be to do as much damage as you can to the regime's capability of suppressing its own people and its ability to project power and threaten its neighbors.

And then at some point, before things get totally chaotic and out of hand economically and in the spreading of the war, say, we're going to take this pause.

We're going to hopefully find other ways, not necessarily kinetic ways, to support the Iranian people in their quest for freedom and their quest to put in place a different regime.

But the notion that the United States can change the regime, there's no historical precedent of changing regime through air power.

There's no sufficient knowledge of the intricacies of Iranian society for the United States to pick a leader and have any credibility to have that leader be successful.

I think that's a very, very significant overreach.

Okay, so, you know, there's an article right now in the Washington Post, obviously I have not chased it down, but suggesting that there's been some kind of alteration to troop exercises.

People are speculating whether that means troop deployment.

Do you even imagine that that could come from the United States?

I mean, certainly the, you know, the Pentagon has said no boots on the ground, but do you think that's likely to happen?

Well, again, here we have to read the president's mind, and it's something I try not to do because it's very hard to do.

And he'll be very impulsive, and he'll sometimes listen to the last person he talks to, and sometimes he's driven by God knows what impulses.

I don't think there's any support in the United States among the American people to put troops on the ground in Iran.

I think we have a president who campaigned against the notion of Middle East regime change wars.

He bitterly criticized, as many Americans did, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least the way they unfolded and how long we were there and how much sacrifice we paid in blood and treasure, and how basically unsuccessful we were in trying to be the architects of new governance in those societies.

He very clearly spoke to that when he traveled to the Gulf last year, and he said nation-building is not what we're about.

People who don't know the societies and the cultures that they're not from are not the ones who should be trying to do that.

And he rebuffed and rejected that American history.

So the idea that he would be pulled into, or allow himself to be pulled into, putting troops on the ground and trying to construct the new leadership of Iran, I don't think it's something the American people support.

I don't think it's something that the Congress of the United States supports.

I don't really think it's something the Iranian people want to see, much as they do want to see this regime collapse.

The idea the United States would come in as an occupier of any portion of Iran and try to be the architects of the next regime, that doesn't sound like something that sells in Iran, in the region, or among the American people.

And there's been experience in terms of coups and things like that, that the U.S.

has been behind that had terrible backlashes eventually.

But I want to play something from President Trump and his chief spokesperson, because it goes to the heart of what you said.

He changes his mind, he operates on the gut, etc.

Here's what he said just recently.

We were having negotiations with these lunatics and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first.

They were going to attack if we didn't do it.

This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the President's feeling based on fact that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America, based on the fact that they are the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.

So there's opinion in there, there's the President's feelings based on fact, but not many people believe that there was an imminent threat, particularly at this time.

I guess what I would like to ask you is, A, about making these huge, most important decisions about war and peace and life and death based on your gut, combined with Axios reporting that suggests that President Trump was, you know, the whole agenda was accelerated.

He and Prime Minister Netanyahu had been in lots of contact over the two months before, and it was moved up, accelerated at least two months beyond what potentially President Trump might have envisioned, under pressure from Netanyahu.

Can you tell me what you think about that, and then this kind of talk about gut reactions to launching wars?

Well, there's no imminent threat.

I don't sit in classified briefings anymore, but those members of Congress who have been briefed with classified material, I think have been very clear.

Nothing was presented to them that suggested there was an imminent threat.

Iran is a constant threat because we know how aggressive it has been, how much it has projected power and terror around the region.

Israel, of course, was attacked twice in 2024 directly with hundreds of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones.

So there is a real threat there.

But in the time period we're talking about, when those nuclear negotiations were being conducted, which were never going to be successful--Iran was never going to make the necessary concessions of conceding all enrichment and all nuclear-enriched material--there was no, as I'm aware of, indication Iran was about to attack the United States.

So the imminence, I think, is not very credible.

Now, as I said, Israel earlier felt that it did have to address this ballistic missile threat before Iran significantly ramped up the production of the very ballistic missiles that had been successful partially in penetrating Israel's air defenses last June.

And so that was what Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump were talking about in December.

Then, with the protests happening in January, it does appear that the timetable was significantly accelerated.

And that's where I think the president made a big mistake.

If you are going to move a big force like he did into the Middle East, and you are going to bring as many aircraft, as many soldiers and sailors and airmen into the region and put their lives on the line, you, as the president of the United States, as almost every previous president in a similar situation has done, have the obligation to come to the American people not to reveal operational details, not to reveal things that would cost tactical advantage and surprise, but to explain the strategy.

Why are we doing this?

What is the goal?

Is there an imminent threat?

What are we trying to achieve?

Why is it so necessary that we put our men and women in uniform at risk to achieve this objective?

He didn't do that.

And it meant that on Saturday morning a week ago when the war began, I think many Americans woke up very surprised to discover we were at war in the Middle East, something that he had said he was going to try very hard to avoid.

If he has a case, and again, Iran being the regime it is, there are legitimate threats that are associated with, but if he has a case to make that he still at this point, hasn't made a full address to the American people.

He still has given these partial conversations with different reporters, saying very different things in different conversations about what he's actually trying to achieve.

So, I think there's a lot of confusion among the American people, but that's because I think there's a lot of confusion within him and his -- among him and his administration.

>> And very finally, and we've only got one minute left, you know, he is honing in, as we kind of discussed, on the "Del C. Rodriguez, Venezuela, decapitate the leader, leave the regime in place model.

Do you think that's the best that they can expect as an outcome right now?

Or what, given the fact that, you know, as you just said, there's been no strategy laid out.

Yes, the military thing is happening, but the political and the, you know, geo strategic goals are not clear and keep shifting.

Yeah, look, degrading this regime's capabilities both externally and internally is something that will have real benefit to the United States, to the American people, to our regional allies, even if there's real questions about whether this war was needed now or whether there was an imminent threat.

But anybody who has studied the Iranian regime and the most knowledgeable experts I know all agree that this regime is more than just the Ayatollah at the top, more than just that top layer of leadership that were killed on the first day.

It's a system.

It's durable.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, men under arms who subscribe to its ideology, who are now in a fight for their survival.

And the notion that one person in that system is just going to put their head up and say, "Well, no, I'll just work as a client, essentially, of Washington," seems highly, highly dubious to me.

Which is what Del Ciro Rodriguez is doing in Venezuela, and Trump keeps trying to compare the two.

We've got a ways to go.

Ambassador Daniel Shapiro, thank you for joining me from Amman, Jordan.

And now, President Trump's strikes on Iran are bringing back memories for some of George W. Bush's war in Iraq, minus the ground invasion at this time.

David Frum, a special assistant to Bush, played a key messaging role in that conflict, coming up with the famous term "axis of evil."

A Trump critic, Frum says this war could empower what he describes as an untrustworthy president with a contempt for the law.

Here he is with Michelle Martin.

Thanks, Christiane.

David Frum, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

Thank you.

You are a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Your latest piece, you wrote, "The Paradox of Trump's Iran Attack," and you wrote that President Trump has launched a war that offers opportunities to the Middle East and threatens constitutional freedom at home.

So walk us through that tension.

Well, let me give you-let's start with the danger here at home.

There is now an alleged shooter identified in the Austin, Texas, mass shooting attack.

The alleged shooter reportedly wore an Iran t-shirt as he committed the attack.

Now, I don't for a moment believe that the shooter, the alleged shooter, is in any way connected to the government of Iran.

But it's not hard to imagine how when you are fighting a war with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, a country that does have networks all over the world that has carried out terrorist attacks on foreign soil, including here in the United States, that the president would say, "You know what?

We need to ramp up homeland security activity to head off a terrorist threat."

And everything you've seen in Minneapolis and places like that to date is just the opening course, the overture to what now must come to protect Americans against Iranian terror attack.

I think that is going to be a really severe risk in the days ahead.

You've described Trump's foreign policy as being driven by fantasy and image more than strategy in the Iran case.

Is there a clear example of that?

The fantasy that drives him is he does have this sense of himself as this great figure in history who is beloved at home and commands respect abroad when obviously none of that is very true and he is attracted to cheap and easy successes.

Look, last year when he struck the Iranian nuclear program, that was a short, sharp strike and then he said, "It's done."

And many people were more expert said, "Well, that's not done.

If you're going to start this thing, it's going to have to be finished and it's going to be a much bigger project to finish it."

And so duly a year later, President Trump is like, "You know that thing I told you was cheap and easy and free last year.

Turns out we paid one installment, but there are now more installments that must be paid."

Well, Ukraine being an example where during his campaign for his latest term, the president said that he would solve this problem within a day.

And clearly it has not yet solved.

Do you see an example in the Iran case of where the president seems to have a notion that doesn't seem to be borne out by facts as they're understood by others?

Well, we're getting some clues about his idea of an end state, is he thinks he can do what he did in Venezuela.

So in Venezuela, you had a corrupt, authoritarian, brutal regime, which was massively unpopular with its own people.

In fact, as you will remember, there was even the regime attempted to fake an election a year ago, and they were so unpopular, they couldn't even win a faked election.

And it became clear there is an agreed, democratically legitimate leader of the Venezuelan people.

But Trump did not want her to be the leader because it would be more difficult, more work, and maybe she wouldn't be as amenable to his will as the next thug in line was.

So in Venezuela, he struck, removed one thug, replaced the thug with the next thug in line, and he's got a situation he finds satisfactory, although the Venezuelan people are no better off than they were before.

He may have something like that in mind in Iran.

Knock off, in this case, the top 40 or 100 thugs, find thug 101, hope that thug 101, and I'll say he because it's going to be a he in Iran, that thug 101 or 102 is a big crook and that you can therefore do Trump-style business with this big crook.

That's a hope.

Maybe it's more than a hope, but it's not a very attractive future if you're an Iranian who has risked life or sacrificed the life of yourself or your loved ones to say, "We want freedom," while Trump's saying, "Well, no, what we're going to give you is the next crook in line."

You served in the administration of George W. Bush.

This seems to be following a pattern where Americans have this notion that the people on the ground will finish the job.

Americans will start, they will finish.

Did you, just sort of being honest about it, did your administration have a similar notion when it came to Iraq?

There was a big fight about this.

The George W. Bush administration had people who wanted to be involved in the future of Iraq and people who did not.

And basically, the people who wanted to be more involved were able to win the argument about should we go to war?

And they then lost the argument about what should happen after the war.

And so, I think the people who, what ended up happening was the Iraq war became a kind of raid.

Rush into Iraq, get Saddam, topple the Ba'ath regime, then get out as fast as possible and count on the Iraqis to sort things out.

But Iraq was a badly damaged society.

They'd been under tyranny for so long.

The institutions of state were smashed.

Basic amenities like water and electricity were in ruins.

The country-and, of course, when you have as cruel a government as Iraq had, it leaves behind a legacy of vendetta.

There are people who have suffered terribly, or their relatives have suffered terribly, and they have payback impulses.

And it's gonna take a lot of policing to keep those payback impulses under control.

I fear that very much in Iran.

And Iran is a more cohesive society than Iraq was.

The vast majority speak the same language, the vast majority speak, they're 60% Persian, but most Iranians are Shiite Muslim, most of them speak some form of Persian, and it's much more urbanized, but there is a lot of pain left behind, and there's a lot of damage.

Tehran doesn't have enough drinking water.

How do you keep the power on?

There are pensions that have to be paid, hospitals that have to keep working, children need to go to school.

It's an advanced society.

All those things need to happen.

Who's in charge of delivering those results when the existing regime, horrible, brutal, cruel, corrupt as it is, when it falls apart, who keeps the lights on?

What do you think should happen at this point?

How do you think Congress should react?

- I understand why Democrats are very angry about the way the president has treated them.

I mean, he gave a State of the Union address full of stunts and insults.

He did not ask Congress's consent for this war.

He did not invite debate.

He went to war anyway, and now he's going to need a lot of money to pay for it, and he's going to ask Congress to vote money that it was not allowed to debate in advance.

And there are a lot of Democrats who feel they can't trust them and want to impose war powers restrictions.

And there are a lot of them who will feel at fear, as I do, the use that Trump will make of his war powers at home to suppress dissent, to compromise elections.

That said, there is no undoing what has been done.

There is no return to the pre-war status quo.

You can't stop this.

It's on.

And so getting to a better tomorrow does not allow you, wishing to go back to yesterday does not get you to a better tomorrow.

So I think Congress has to take decisive action to take more charge.

And here's the lever.

Speaker Johnson does not have a Republican majority to fund this war.

There will be enough Republican defections.

You cannot get supplemental authorizations or appropriations for the war through the House of Representatives on Republican votes alone.

So he is going to need Democratic votes to pay for the war.

And for all practical purposes, the Republican majority is over.

It is not a majority House anymore.

So the House has to run its affairs as if it had to be bipartisan, as if there's now a joint Republican-Democratic coalition majority to fund the cost of war, and Democrats have to have equal voice in a war that they're going to be indispensable to funding.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation says it's received more than 200 complaints from service members alleging that some commanders framed the Iran mission in religious terms, including one briefing where troops were reportedly told that President Trump had been "anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon."

Sort of unquote.

And I just wonder what you make of that.

Well, personally, if I were going into battle under a commander, I'd want a commander who thought our job was to prevent Armageddon rather than to cause it.

Like, that's not like, "Oh, if we're on the path to Armageddon, maybe we should be on some other path."

Look, people, it's a big military, there may be all kinds of lower-ranking people who say crazy things.

The question you have is, what about the senior-most leadership?

Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of War as he styles himself, illegally, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegsa, gave a press conference at the beginning of the week in which he said, "The United States will not do democracy building, it will not do state building in Iran."

And you think, "Well, if you're not doing it, who's in charge of that?"

And then what happens once you've smashed up the existing leadership?

There's a lot of perhaps democratic capacity within Iranian society, but to get from here to there after all these years of oppression, in the midst of a battle zone, that's not going to happen automatically.

And if it's not the American job, whose job is it?

And if it doesn't happen, the United States will not escape the consequences of it not happening.

And what might those consequences be for people who have not or would prefer not to spend a lot of time thinking about that?

Here are two.

One is I mentioned that 60% of the population of Iran is Persian.

You can do the math.

40% is not.

Some of them may have separatist sympathies or separatist inclinations.

There's also a problem that there are tens of thousands of Iranians who have lost people they love to cruel butchery by the authorities.

If the authorities are defenseless, what will the people do?

Well, some of them will pray and mourn, but some will take action.

Some will take up whatever weapons that come to their hand and go to a police station and chop up the police officers.

And that's a natural human impulse, I think, after what they've been through, but it leads to carnage in the streets and possible civil war.

And what might be the consequences for the United States?

Iran is crammed with weapons.

Most people can't get them because they're held by the police or the authorities.

If the police and authorities are defeated, those weapons become available.

There's fissile material present in Iran.

There's a lot of people with the skills and know-how to do terrorism on a global scale who will now be unemployed.

You know, we saw what happened when the Ba'athist officers in Iraq lost their jobs.

They went and did what they knew how to do best, which was terrorize fellow Iraqis.

But the people in Iran who may be about to lose their jobs, what they know best is how to inflict terrorism worldwide.

It loops back to this notion that there really is no plan.

There's really no strategic thinking.

There's this sort of this sense of do this thing, do the thing, make a big discussion or show of it, and then what happens next?

And there doesn't seem to be any afterthought about that.

- But there needs to, and I would say, what I would hope people would take away from our conversation that I am most concerned about is there's no going back to where the United States was a week ago.

There's no undoing this thing.

So Trump has locked us all in the car, locked the steering wheel, and driven off the cliff.

You can't say, "I wish we were back up there on the cliff."

All you can do is say, "We now need a plan to land the car."

And cars weren't meant to fly, so this is going to be a kind of a Thelma and Louise moment maybe, but someone needs to say, "There has to be a real plan."

And that's going to come from Congress to say there needs to be oversight, there needs to be a plan for an end state, there needs to be a plan to make sure that the war powers that Trump now has got are not abused at home, that there need to be guarantees that the 26 elections will not be suppressed or perverted, that DHS will not use the fear of Iranian terrorism as an excuse to crack down on the liberties of American people, to shoot more Americans on the sides of the streets.

We need more professionals.

If terrorism is a real risk, we need professionals at DHS, people who tell the truth and who don't steer contracts to their friends.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll this week found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.

A CNN/SSRS poll conducted over the weekend showed that 59 percent disapproval overall, more than 80 percent of Democrats opposed.

President Trump responded by telling the New York Post, I don't care about polling.

But he does care.

I mean, he does care about how he is viewed.

And I just wonder whether public opinion will play a role.

Given everything you just said, you said, look, we're already in the car, the car is already moving.

But would public opinion, could public opinion offer some break on this or offer at least some guide about what could happen next or might inform the president's thinking.

There's no break because the decision has happened.

So you can't break it because it's it's happened.

We're in the middle of it.

What but what I think public opinion signals is, look, the way the one of the ways that people know whether something is workable is if they see a broad consensus in the US government that something can work.

And that's that's always been the way it's been in the past.

When when presidents make important decisions, they try to show look, it's not just this is not just my idea.

And it's not just me and the people I personally hired.

See, I've got here, the leaders of Congress from both parties, I've got a bunch of governors here who also agree this is a good idea.

I've got police chiefs or firefighters.

I've got business leaders.

I've got a range of relevant business leaders.

A lot of people in whom you should have confidence, who've earned your confidence, they all think this is a good idea.

That's not a guarantee that they can all be wrong too.

But at least there's something here more than one person's whim.

Trump has made this war one of one person's whim, and it's a person who most Americans don't trust for excellent reasons.

So if this war is going to continue for more than a few more hours, he's going to need to find a way-and this is not in his nature, so someone is going to need to do this for him-to put this administration on a different kind of footing, where it tries to speak for the nation rather than just a fragment of the nation.

So near the end of the piece, you write, "A free Iran and a free United States.

Americans should seek both.

If we can get to a free Iran fast, Trump's plot against American freedom will have less scope to operate.

If the war to free Iran falters or slows, the attack on free institutions at home may expand and accelerate.

Should people listen to our conversation, what should they do?

If 72 hours from now, whoever has control of the guns in Iran says, "Okay, we're done.

Let's make a deal," then any Trump idea of using this war to suppress freedoms at home is not gonna work, 'cause the war will come to some kind of resolution.

But if they're still fighting two months from now, three months from now, four months from now, real fighting, if there are terrorist plots being discovered in London, Paris, Hamburg, and on American soil, then President Trump's gonna have a lot of modalities in his hand to do real damage to American liberties, worse even than he was successfully able to do in 2025.

So this is a midterm election year.

I mean, people have the opportunity to vote.

Now, this must be challenging for you as a person who had identified with the Republican Party for such a long time.

But the reality of it is that people are voting.

I mean, is this something that they should be carrying with them as they make their decision?

- They inevitably will, because one of the effects of this war is that things are going to get more expensive.

Energy prices will spike for at least for a little while.

So gasoline will cost more, fuel will cost more.

We pay so much attention to the gas price, because you can take a picture of it at the pump.

We don't pay as much attention to the price of electricity, because that shows up on everybody's bill, and everybody's bill looks different.

But in 2025, if I remember this right, the average electric bill went up by more than 10% for the average American family.

It may go up more in 2026, and that's a big cost.

And it's not one you can avoid by simply taking the bus.

I mean, you have to heat your home.

I have to keep the lights on.

Food prices will be more.

And America is going into this war.

It's got Israel by its side, but the network of alliances that the United States relies on to supply troops.

You may say, "How important is Spain?"

which is said it wants no part of it.

But American supply vessels do set down on Spanish islands and Spanish territory or Portuguese islands and Portuguese territory.

The United States is used to doing military action in giant coalitions of many, many capable friends.

And sometimes some friends do more, some friends do less, but you can always, even the people who are doing less, in the past, you've always been able to say, help us just with this one special thing, we need you to do it, and they usually do it.

In this case, the United States is isolated in a way that is very different from any way it's fought a war in the recent past.

David Frum, thank you so much for talking with us once again.

Thank you.

Unity is hard to come by these days.

And finally, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky says he's happy to help the United States counter Iranian drones, since his country has become successful as that, and it fights off Russia in a war for survival.

It's his way of showing solidarity with allies who've helped him.

The Olympics are also meant to demonstrate global solidarity through sport, but tonight, Zelensky and some European leaders are boycotting the opening ceremony for the Paralympics in Italy.

That's because they are outraged over the decision to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete under their national flags.

They had been disallowed for the past 12 years over a doping scandal and then their aggression on Ukraine.

One country missing from this year's Games is Iran.

Its Paralympians couldn't travel there safely.

That's it for our program tonight.

If you want to find out what's coming up every night, sign up for our newsletter at pbs.org/amanpour.

Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

[music]