>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY. "

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

> >> WAR SPREADS BEYOND THE MIDDLE EAST AS THE U. S. TORPEDOS AN IRANIAN WARSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

AND DRONES DAMAGE AN AIRPORT IN AZERBAIJAN.

THE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, JOINS ME.

> >> A LOOK INSIDE THIS EXTRAORDINARY AND DANGEROUS TIME IN IRAN.

WE HEAR FROM PEOPLE INSIDE THE COUNTRY ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE SEEING AND FEELING.

> >> PLUS I ASK HISTORIANS WHETHER IRAN IS ON THE VERGE OF ANOTHER REVOLUTION.

> >> ALSO AHEAD, DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS TRY AGAIN TO LIMIT TRUMP'S ABILITY TO WAGE WAR.

HARRY S. SPEAKS TO A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR ABOUT THE LATEST EFFORTS ON CAPITOL HILL.

> >> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE STRAUS FAMILY FOUNDATION.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

MONIQUE SHOWEN WARSHAW.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN.

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.

THE WAR ON IRAN IS SPILLING OUT BEYOND THE MIDDLE EAST, PULLING IN EVER MORE COUNTRIES LIKE AZERBAIJAN, WHERE A DRONE STRUCK AN AIRPORT, INJURING TWO PEOPLE, DAMAGING THE TERMINAL.

IRAN'S MILITARY DENIES LAUNCHING IT, BUT IT DOES COME JUST A DAY AFTER NATO SHOT DOWN A MISSILE HEADED FOR TURKISH AIR SPACE.

THE UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, AND ITALY HAVE BEGUN WORKING TO SHORE UP EUROPEAN DEFENSES IN CYPRUS AFTER A BRITISH AIR BASE ON THE ISLAND WAS ATTACKED EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

THIS VIDEO, RELEASED BY THE IDF, SHOWS ISRAELI JETS EN ROUTE TO IRAN WHERE IT CONTINUES TO POUND TARGETS, HITTING MORE IRANIAN MISSILE SITES AND HEZBOLLAH POSITIONS INSIDE LEBANON.

THE U. S. , TOO, IS EXPANDING ITS WAR ZONE, TORPEDOING AN IRANIAN WARSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS OFF THE COAST OF SRI LANKA, KILLING AT LEAST 87 IRANIAN SAILORS ON BOARD.

THE U. S. DEFENSE SECRETARY, PETE HEGSETH, CALLS IT A QUIET DEATH.

WHILE IRAN'S FOREIGN MINISTER CALLS IT AN ATROCITY.

AND IRANIAN STATE MEDIA SAY THAT MORE THAN 1,200 PEOPLE HAVE NOW BEEN KILLED IN IRAN.

CORRESPONDENT FRED PLEITGEN AND HIS TEAM HAVE NOW CROSSED THE BORDER INTO IRAN.

THEY ARE THE FIRST --IT IS THE FIRST TIME A U. S. NETWORK HAS BEEN ALLOWED INTO THE COUNTRY SINCE THE START OF THE WAR, AND OF COURSE, AS ALL REPORTERS THERE OPERATING THERE ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT.

AND HERE'S THEIR FIRST REPORT.

>> Reporter: WE JUST CROSSED THE BORDER AND ARE NOW INSIDE OF IRAN.

THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT HAS GRANTED US A VISA TO COME HERE AND TO REPORT FROM THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

WE'RE NOW TRYING TO MAKE OUR WAY TO THE CAPITAL, TEHRAN, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, BUT OF COURSE THE DISTANCES IN THIS HUGE COUNTRY ARE IMMENSE AND WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO TAKE MANY, MANY HOURS FOR US TO GET THERE.

WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION ON THE ROAD TO TEHRAN IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

HOW MANY CHECKPOINTS THERE'S GOING TO BE.

AND OF COURSE, WE KNOW AT THE SAME TIME THERE ARE MASSIVE COMBAT OPERATIONS ALSO GOING ON.

THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL ARE CONTINUING THEIR HUGE AERIAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST TARGETS INSIDE OF IRAN.

AT THE SAME TIME THE IRANIANS CONTINUE TO RETALIATE, NOT JUST WITH THEIR BALLISTIC MISSILES BUT WITH THEIR DRONES, MOSTLY HITTING ISRAEL, BUT THEN ALSO AMERICAN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE GULF REGION.

BUT IN GENERAL, IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

IN TOTAL, THE IRANIANS ARE SAYING THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE THIS CAMPAIGN FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

THEY SAY THEIR MISSILE ARSENAL IS STILL IMMENSE, THAT THEY HAVEN'T EVEN USED SOME OF THEIR MOST MODERN MISSILES.

WE ALSO, OF COURSE, KNOW THE PLACE WE AIM TO GO TO, TEHRAN, HAS BEEN UNDER ALMOST SUSTAINED ATTACKS WITH MASSIVE AIR STRIKES GOING ON THERE AND ALSO HUGE DAMAGE BEING CAUSED, AND OF COURSE MANY PEOPLE ALSO HAVING BEEN HARMED.

>> SO AS FRED WAS REPORTING, THE SCOPE OF THIS WAR IS ONLY GROWING.

USING A TORPEDO TO SINK AN IRANIAN COMBAT VESSEL MARKS THE FIRST TIME A U. S. NAVY SUBMARINE HAS DONE THAT SINCE WORLD WAR II.

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLIN SERVED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE W. BUSH AND BARACK OBAMA AND PREVIOUSLY AS THE U. S. NAVY'S CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, AND HE'S JOINING ME NOW FROM MARYLAND FOR HIS FIRST INTERVIEW SINCE THIS WAR BEGAN.

SO WELCOME, AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, CHRISTIANE.

>> ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR AN ATTACK?

THE ADMINISTRATION'S RATIONALE?

>> WELL, I THINK, ACTUALLY, HERE IN THE U. S. , THERE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE OBJECTIVES WERE IN ITS MOVE FROM --TO DESTROY THEIR MISSILE CAPABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN'T DEVELOP A NUCLEAR WEAPON EVER.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SOME DISCUSSION OF REGIME CHANGE.

I THINK IT'S SORT OF SETTLED ON THE FIRST TWO.

I THINK THE REGIME CHANGE THAT I THINK MOST PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE, NOT JUST THE FACT THAT THE SUPREME LEADER HAS DIED.

I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN MOVE TO A POINT WHERE THE OBJECTIVES ARE SOMEWHAT LIMITED AND THEN ESSENTIALLY CONTAIN IRAN IN THE FUTURE.

I MEAN, IT'S BEEN A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF FIREPOWER THAT WE'VE PUT INTO THEM.

AND CLEARLY, THEY'VE RESPONDED.

SO --AND I THINK IN THE LONG RUN, WE'LL DEBATE WHETHER THE OBJECTIVES WERE RIGHT UP FRONT OR THEY WERE WELL UNDERSTOOD.

ONE OF THE POSITIONS I'M IN IS, LOOK, WE'RE IN NOW, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT COME OUT AS WELL AS POSSIBLE.

>> I'LL ASK YOU ABOUT THAT, BUT FIRST, WE SPOKE IN JUNE DURING THE SO-CALLED 12-DAY WAR.

BACK THEN, YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE CONCERNED AT THE POSSIBILITY THAT TRUMP WOULD STRIKE IRAN, THAT IRAN WOULD LASH OUT AT GULF STATES, AND THEN THAT IT WOULD SPREAD TO A MUCH WIDER WAR THAT COULDN'T BE CONTAINED.

THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT CAN OR CANNOT BE CONTAINED, BUT IT IS MUCH WIDER THAN ANYBODY EXPECTED, EVEN TRUMP ADMITTED THIS WEEK HE WAS SURPRISED BY IRAN'S RETALIATION.

ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT HE WAS SURPRISED, OR DO YOU THINK IRAN TELEGRAPHED IN THE LEAD-UP TO THIS EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD DO?

>> WELL, I HAVE --I MEAN, THIS HAS NOT SURPRISED ME AT ALL, THAT IT HAS EXPANDED, THAT IT'S GONE FROM AS FAR FROM CYPRUS TO OMAN TO AZERBAIJAN.

AND THAT YOU SEE EUROPEAN CAPITALS NOW LOOKING TO BETTER DEFEND THEMSELVES, POSSIBLY, AS WELL.

I MEAN, CHRISTIANE, FOR ME IT'S WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

IT'S ALWAYS COMPLEX.

IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO ESCALATE AND BECOME MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CERTAINLY I LEARNED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN IS, WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON HOW THIS ENDS.

SOME IDEA.

NOT JUST WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS, BUT WHAT'S THE END STATE?

YOU ALWAYS DON'T GET THAT RIGHT, BUT I THINK IT SERVES US WELL TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

THEN YOU SORT OF HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING FOR.

I'M JUST NOT SURE WE HAVE THAT YET, WITH RESPECT TO IRAN.

>> WELL, YOU ARE SAYING EARLIER THAT YOU HOPED THAT IT WOULD BE A MORE LIMITED SCOPE, THAT ONE COULD ACTUALLY AIM FOR AND THEN MEASURE.

AND I GUESS HAVE THAT AS AN EXIT STRATEGY.

BUT IN YET ANOTHER INDEPENDENT INTERVIEW WITH A U. S. PRESS, AXIOS, BARACK RAVEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID -- THIS GOES TO YOUR REGIME CHANGE COMMENT -- THAT HE HAS TO DECIDE AND BE INVOLVED IN WHO IS THE NEXT LEADER.

HE HAS SAID THAT THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS BEING FLOATED TO SUCCEED THE ASSASSINATED KHAMENEI, HIS SON, IS "UNACCEPTABLE," IT WOULD JUST BE MORE OF THE SAME.

HE SAID HE NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED LIKE HE WAS WITH DELCY, REFERRING TO DELCY RODRIGUEZ, NICOLAS MADURO'S DEPUTY IN VENEZUELA.

WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?

>> I THINK THAT'S VERY HARD.

I THINK THE PRESIDENT CAN CERTAINLY ASSERT THAT.

I THINK IN THE END, IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH THE IRANIAN LEADERSHIP WOULD ACQUIESCE TO THAT, THAT THOUGHT AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PART OF OUR OWN PRESIDENT.

THIS IS A VERY HARDLINE REGIME.

CERTAINLY WHAT I READ ABOUT KHAMENEI'S SON, HE'S MORE OF A HARDLINER.

WHETHER HE'S THE LEADER THAT HIS DAD WAS IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD THINK VERY HARD ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO DISPLACE THIS REGIME.

THEY'VE KNOWN SOMETHING LIKE THIS WAS COMING FOR A LONG TIME.

NOW, I'M STRUCK THAT ONE OF THE DATA POINTS IS THAT THE IRGC, BASICALLY THEIR MILITARY, RUNS ABOUT 40% OF THEIR ECONOMY.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHANGING REGIMES AND CHANGING OUT FOR THE BETTER, WE'RE DISPLACING EVERYTHING THAT AN AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE REGIME STAND FOR.

AND I THINK THIS WAR RIGHT NOW IS A FIGHT FOR IRAN'S SURVIVAL.

FOR THEIR REGIME'S SURVIVAL.

SO I THINK HAVING A POSITION OR ASSERTING A POSITION THAT YOU NEED TO HELP DECIDE WHO THE NEXT LEADER IS, THAT'S A REAL CHALLENGE.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ALSO, BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE FUTURE, THERE'S ALWAYS --THERE'S BEEN THESE VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S ENOUGH AMMUNITION, ET CETERA.

THIS CURRENT CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS SAYS THERE IS.

THIS IS WHAT SENATOR MARK KELLY, HIMSELF A COMBAT VET, HAS SAID ABOUT THIS.

LET'S JUST LISTEN.

>> MY BIGGEST CONCERN RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S THE MATH?

WHAT'S THE MATH ON THIS?

HOW MANY BALLISTIC MISSILES DO THE IRANIANS STILL HAVE?

HOW MANY INTERCEPTERS DO WE HAVE IN THE REGION?

IS THIS MATH STILL IN OUR FAVOR?

I DON'T THINK SO.

>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS, QUOTE, THERE ARE VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED SUPPLY OF THESE WEAPONS FOR THE UNITED STATES.

>> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO KNOW.

THE WHOLE ISSUE OF MISSILE INVENTORY HAS BEEN VERY MUCH FRONT AND CENTER, LITERALLY SINCE UKRAINE STARTED THE --THE WAR IN UKRAINE STARTED IN 2022.

THAT WE'VE DEPLETED A GREAT NUMBER THAT, WE I DEPLETED A GREAT NUMBER OF THESE KINDS OF MISSILES WHEN WE WERE INVOLVED IN THE RED SEA, DEFENDING AGAINST THE HOUTHIS THAT WERE ATTACKING SHIPPING THERE.

BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE A FEEL FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE ACTUAL INVENTORY IS.

I'M SURE THE CURRENT CHAIRMAN AND THE MILITARY LEADERSHIP HAS GOT AN EXACT FEEL FOR THAT.

AND WOULD CERTAINLY ACT ACCORDINGLY.

THESE MISSILE LINES, YOU CAN'T --YOU CAN'T PRODUCE THEM VERY QUICKLY.

WE HAVE --WE HAVE DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE PRODUCTION RATE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

BUT IF WHAT I READ AND THE NUMBER OF TARGETS WE'VE ATTACKED AND THE NUMBER OF MISSILES AND DRONES THAT IRAN HAS USED, YOU KNOW, THE DEPLETION IS PRETTY RAPID.

HOW LONG IT CAN LAST, AND I THINK THIS IS PART OF IRAN'S STRATEGY, WHICH IS, CAN THEY OUTLAST US?

THERE IS, AS YOU KNOW, THIS FAMOUS LINE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

YOU'VE GOT THE CLOCK, BUT WE'VE GOT THE TIME.

AND I THINK IRAN JUST NEEDS TO SURVIVE THIS, AS OPPOSED TO, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, WIN IT.

AND OBVIOUSLY THE MISSILE INVENTORY IS A BIG PART OF THAT.

>> SO, AS YOU WANT TO LOOK FORWARD, THERE'S ANOTHER REPORT NOW IN THE "WASHINGTON POST," SAYS PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLS ON THE KURDS TO AID U. S. EFFORT AND OFFER SUPPORT.

THERE'S A LOT OF MIXED INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS REAL, WHETHER IT'S NOT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ARMING THE KURDS, WHICH WE'VE BEEN TOLD, WITH SMALL ARMS --THEY'RE SEPARATISTS, THEY MAKE UP 9 TO 10 MILLION PEOPLE IN IRAN.

DO YOU THINK THAT'S WHAT --WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT STRATEGY, IF IT HAPPENS?

>> I THINK DEALING WITH THE KURDS IS ALWAYS A HUGE CHALLENGE.

OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE IN THREE DISTINCT GROUPS.

USUALLY TWO OF THEM ARE AFTER ANOTHER ONE.

THE PKK, WHICH IS ONE OF THEM, IS A DECLARED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

THE ORGANIZATION --THE KURDISH IN NORTHERN IRAQ, IT'S A VERY STABLE GROUP.

IT WAS EVEN THROUGH THE WARS.

AND I THINK THERE'S GREAT, GREAT FRICTION, FOR INSTANCE, INSIDE TURKEY WITH THE KURDS THAT ARE THERE.

AND I SAW --I MEAN, YOU COMMENTED IN YOUR OPENING, I THINK, ABOUT MISSILES INTERCEPTED ON ITS WAY TO TURKEY.

I THINK TURKEY IS A HUGE PART OF THIS CHALLENGE.

THEIR LEADER THERE HAS WANTED TO SORT OF RUN THE ISLAMIC WORLD FOR SOME TIME.

THEY'RE A MEMBER OF NATO.

THAT COMPLICATES THINGS.

SO I THINK INVOLVING THE KURDS IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN WHAT MIGHT BE SEEN AS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE OF SOME OF THEIR BACKGROUND.

IT'S ALWAYS REALLY COMPLEX WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THEM.

IT WAS IN IRAQ WHEN WE WERE ESSENTIALLY PROVIDING A SAFE HAVEN FOR THEM IN NORTHERN IRAQ, PROTECTING THEM INMENT MANY, MANY WAYS.

SO I JUST --WE NEED TO MOVE AND UNDERSTAND THAT CAUTIOUSLY, AND THERE WILL BE PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT UNDERSTAND THIS, YOU KNOW.

HOW DEEPLY DIFFICULT THIS MIGHT BE AND WHAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ALSO ABOUT THE SUBMARINE ATTACK, THE TORPEDO THAT WAS TOLD TO US BY YOUR SUCCESSOR, DAN CAINE.

GENERAL DAN CAINE SAID IT WAS THE FIRST TIME A U. S. ATTACK SUBMARINE HAS USED A TORPEDO TO SINK A COMBAT SHIP SINCE 1945.

APPARENTLY THIS IRANIAN SHIP HAD BEEN SAILING HOME FROM AN EAST INDIAN PORT WHERE IT PARTICIPATED IN INTERNATIONAL NAVAL CONFERENCE HOSTED BY INDIA.

AND THE IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER HAS POSTED, THE U. S. HAS PERPETRATED AN ATROCITY AT SEA 2,000 MILES AWAY FROM IRAN'S SHORES.

MARK MY WORDS, THE U. S. WILL COME TO BITTERLY REGRET PRECEDENT IT HAS SET.

WHAT'S YOUR VIEW OF THE U. S. USING A TORPEDO TO DO THAT IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

>> LOOK, THE --WHEN A WAR STARTS LIKE THIS, IRAN'S THE ENEMY.

SO THEIR MILITARY IS FAIR GAME.

WHETHER IT'S NEAR OR FAR.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, OR I'M SORRY, THE LEADERSHIP HAS TALKED ABOUT SINKING THE IRANIAN NAVY.

THE IRANIAN NAVY WAS NEVER MUCH OF A THREAT.

OBVIOUSLY THEY HAD PROBLEMS IN THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ, BUT THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO BE IN ANY FIGHT THAT DIFFICULT TO BOTH ELIMINATE - -TO NEUTRALIZE AND ELIMINATE.

AND THIS IS JUST AN INDICATION OF THAT.

THAT'S A MASSIVELY CAPABLE WEAPON THAT THEY USED, THAT WE USED.

SO I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO EXECUTE IT THAT WAY.

>> SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DAY AFTER, AND YOU REALLY WANT TO FIGURE OUT, LIKE EVERYBODY, WHAT IS THE BAR FOR DECLARING VICTORY?

YOU HAVE AMERICA AND ISRAEL IN THE FIRST-EVER OF THIS KIND OF JOINT OPERATION.

THERE MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERING OBJECTIVES.

"A," IS THAT AN ISSUE, DO YOU THINK?

AND "B," HOW DO YOU SEE THIS ENDING?

>> WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES.

I THINK FROM THE U. S. STANDPOINT, WE'D LIKE TO RESTORE DETERRENCE.

WE'D OBVIOUSLY LIKE TO ELIMINATE AND CONTAIN THEIR MISSILE THREAT.

WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CAPABILITY TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR --A NUCLEAR WEAPON IN THE FUTURE.

AND PART WHAT WAS WE NEED TO DO IS FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 450 KILOGRAMS OF 60% ENRICHED URANIUM ONCE THIS THING ENDS.

FOR ISRAEL, IT'S EXISTENTIAL.

I THINK ISRAEL WILL GO AS FAR AS WE LET THEM IN TERMS OF THIS EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

HISTORICALLY, AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS CHRISTIANE, ISRAEL'S HAD A STRATEGY OF ESSENTIALLY MOWING THE GRASS.

THEY'RE WILLING TO GO THROUGH WHATEVER THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH, AND IF IT DOESN'T TOTALLY ELIMINATE IT, WHEN IT STARTS TO BE DEVELOPED AGAIN, COME BACK AGAIN.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER BEEN THE U. S. POSITION.

SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND OUR OBJECTIVES ARE DIFFERENT, AND THERE IS A SURVIVAL ASPECT FOR ISRAEL AND THEY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE THIS THREAT FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO RECONCILE WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITH THAT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE.

THEN THERE'S TWOERS ON PLAYERS.

THERE'S THE GULF STATES.

THEY'D LIKE TO SEE THIS THING END AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

THEY'VE INVESTED BILLIONS IN MAKING THIS A TOURIST HAVEN, A PLACE --AN ECONOMIC HAVEN, ET CETERA.

NOW THAT'S ALL ON HOLD.

SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE BEEN ATTACKED, I THINK IN THE END, THE ATTACKS REALLY ARE ABOUT IRAN COMING AT THE U. S. SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS END AND STABILIZE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

AND THE OTHER PLAYER WHO'S NOT PLAYING MUCH BUT CERTAINLY WATCHING IS CHINA.

WHAT KIND OF WEAPON DEPLETION --WHAT KIND OF APPETITE DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE FOR THIS?

THEY GET 85% OF THEIR ENERGY, THEIR OIL AND GAS, OUT OF THE STRAITS.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THAT'S, YOU KNOW --IRAN EXPORTS SOMEBODY SAID 1.

5 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL A DAY AND 1.

3 OF THAT GOES TO CHINA.

SO THEY'RE JEOPARDIZED TO SOME DEGREE AS WELL.

>> OKAY.

>> SO HOW MUCH OF THIS APPLIES TO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CHINA IN THE FUTURE?

WHO IS EXISTENTIAL TO US.

IS ALSO A BIG QUESTION.

>> INTERESTINGLY THE PRESIDENT IS GOING ON A STATE VISIT TO XI JINPING IN CHINA AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.

> >> INSIDE IRAN, THIS EXTRAORDINARY AND DANGEROUS TIME PROMPTS CONFLICTING EMOTIONS.

THE KILLING OF THE AYATOLLAH AND TARGETING OF INTERNAL SECURITY SITES BRINGS A GREAT DEAL OF GRATIFICATION FOR VICTIMS OF REGIME SUPPRESSION.

THE DEATHS OF IRANIANS, INCLUDING AT A GIRLS' SCHOOL, BRINGS GREAT SORROW.

OUR CORRESPONDENT SPOKE TO SEVERAL IRANIANS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBJECTED TO ABUSE AND TORTURE BY THE REGIME TO HEAR THEIR REACTIONS TO WHAT THEY'RE SEEING NOW.

>> Reporter: "THEY TERRORIZED IRANIAN WOMEN FOR DECADES.

THE REGIME'S ENFORCERS OF SO-CALLED MORALITY.

THIS WEEK, ONE OF THE MOST NOTORIOUS POLICE CENTERS IN TEHRAN WAS HIT IN A STRIKE.

IN TEXT AND AUDIO MESSAGES FROM INSIDE IRAN, WOMEN SHARED WITH US THEIR RELIEF WHEN THEY HEARD THAT PLACE IS NO MORE.

"I'M CRYING BECAUSE I'M SO HAPPY TO KNOW IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I'M CRYING BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE WAY I WAS ASSAULTED AND PUSHED AROUND IN THIS BUILDING. "

"ONE OF THESE OFFICERS TOOK A HANDKERCHIEF LYING ON THE GROUND AND RUBBED IT ON MY FACE AND RUBBED MY MAKEUP OFF. "

"OUR TIME THERE WAS DEEPLY TRAUMATIZING.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT HOW I WOULD GO THERE AND TAKE MY REVENGE IF THE GOVERNMENT FELL.

I'M EXPERIENCING SO MANY CONFLICTING EMOTIONS AT THIS TIME. "

>> Reporter: THESE SATELLITE IMAGES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE STRIKE SHOW THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY THE GISHA STREET COMPLEX THAT ALSO HOUSED OTHER REGIME SECURITY APPARATUS.

FATIMA SAYS STATE SECURITY HELD HER THERE TWICE.

HEARING THE NEWS BROUGHT BACK A NIGHTMARE SHE'S TRIED FOR YEARS TO LEAVE BEHIND IN IRAN.

>> I WAS IN A LITTLE CELL.

I HAVE A FRIEND.

SHE WAS IN THE NEXT ROOM.

AND WE TRIED TO BE CALM WITH THE SOUND OF CRYING EACH OTHER.

YEAH, SHE SHOUTED ME, CRY LOUDER, I WANT TO HEAR YOU.

SORRY.

>> Reporter: FATIMA, A WOMEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND MOTHER, WAS LOCKED UP IN THAT COMPOUND TWICE.

THE SECOND TIME FOR 16 DAYS OF INTERROGATIONS, ACCUSED OF WORKING WITH FOREIGN STATES.

SHE SAYS SHE WAS THREATENED WITH PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE THAT MANY DETAINEES FACE.

THE MOMENT WHEN YOU HEARD THAT IT WAS HIT, HOW DID YOU FEEL?

>> TOO COMPLICATED.

I'M NOT HAPPY.

I DON'T LIKE WAR.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, MY PAIN --OH, THERE IS NO PLACE LIKE THAT FOR MY PEOPLE, FOR ME, TO TORCH.

>> Reporter: FOR THE REGIME'S VICTIMS, SEEING THE WALLS THAT ONCE CAGED THEM NOW CRUMBLE BRINGS A COMPLICATED RELEASE OF EMOTIONS.

"THANK YOU ISRAEL," A WOMAN FILMING THIS VIDEO SAYS.

HER HOUSE WAS DAMAGED IN A STRIKE HERE BUT IT'S OKAY, SHE SAYS, HAPPY TO SACRIFICE IT FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED BY THE REGIME.

THIS IS WHAT WAS HIT IN THAT STRIKE.

A BASE USED BY GOVERNMENT SECURITY FORCES.

THIS VIDEO FROM 2022 DURING THE WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM UPRISING CAPTURED THE SAVAGERY THAT EMANATED FROM THAT BASE.

ABOUT A DOZEN AGENTS WHO OPERATED OUT OF THAT PLACE SURROUND AN UNARMED PROTESTER, RAM HIM WITH A MOTORBIKE, BEAT HIM WITH BATONS, AND THEN THIS.

THAT YOUNG MAN, WHO MIRACULOUSLY SURVIVED, IS PORIA ALI POR.

THAT TERRIFYING NIGHT FOREVER ETCHED ON HIS FACE.

IN A MESSAGE HE TOLD US, "I AM HAPPY TO SEE THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS CRIMINAL BASE.

THIS REGIME MUST BE DESTROYED SO A NEW IRAN CAN RISE. "

PORIA, LIKE OTHER VICTIMS, SAYS HE'S HAPPY TO SEE THESE STRIKES TAKE OUT THE CENTERS OF THE REGIME'S OPPRESSION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT'S PAINFUL KNOWING INNOCENT IRANIANS ARE ALSO PAYING THE PRICE.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE IRANIANS.

THE 29-YEAR-OLD VISUAL ARTIST WAS KILLED IN A STRIKE THAT TARGETED A REGIME SECURITY BUILDING NEAR HIS FAMILY'S HOME.

ONE OF MORE THAN 1,000 CIVILIANS KILLED IN THIS WAR, ACCORDING TO ACTIVISTS.

IT'S A COST THAT COMES WITH THIS MESS SMURF LONG-AWAITED JUSTICE FOR THE REGIME'S COUNTLESS VICTIMS.

>> THANK YOU TO JOMANA FOR THAT IMPORTANT REPORT.

> >> IT'S BEEN 47 YEARS SINCE THE LAST REVOLUTION IN IRAN WHICH TOPPLED THE SHAH AND TURNED THE COUNTRY TO A DRACONIAN, THEOCRATIC ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.

THE SON OF THE SHAH CONTINUES TO BE A PROMINENT FACE OF THE IRANIAN POSITION, DESPITE LIVING MOST OF HIS LIFE IN EXILE IN THE UNITED STATES.

AS HE TOLD ME TWO WEEKS BEFORE THIS WAR, HE IS HOPING TO BE THE ONE WHO LEADS AN IRANIAN TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY, DESPITE LITTLE SUPPORT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

I WANT TO TURN NOW TO TWO HISTORIANS WHO ARE PERFECTLY PLACED TO REFLECT ON ALL OF THIS.

SCOTT ANDERSON IS A LONGTIME JOURNALIST WHO'S REPORTED FROM THE MIDDLE EAST FOR DECADES AND AUTHOR OF "KING OF KINGS: TELLING THE STORY OF THE REVOLUTION. "

AND ABBAS IS A HISTORIAN WHO WAS HIMSELF IMPRISONED AND WENT ON TO WRITE A LANDMARK BIOGRAPHY, "THE SHAH. "

THEY'RE BOTH JOINING ME NOW.

AS AN IRANIAN, YOU SAW JOMANA'S REPORT THERE.

TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL AND WHAT YOU THINK THIS WAR MIGHT DO FOR IRAN.

>> I FEEL A PROFOUND SENSE OF SADNESS FOR THE DEATH OF INNOCENT IRANIANS.

BUT I HOLD IRANIAN REGIME RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, BECAUSE I THINK THEY HAVE PUT THE COUNTRY ON A WARPATH FOR 47 YEARS.

A WAR WITH ISRAEL, A WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES THAT I THINK THE PEOPLE OF IRAN NEVER SIGNED UP FOR.

MR.

KHAMENEI LIED TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAN, PROMISED DEMOCRACY, AND DELIVERED WHAT YOU I THINK APTLY CALLED DRACONIAN DESPOTISM.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THIS REGIME FOR ALMOST 46 YEARS.

AND THUS SEEING THE INNOCENT LIVES, THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, BREAKS I THINK ANY IRANIAN'S HEART AS IT BREAKS MINE.

BUT I CANNOT FORGET THAT LESS THAN THREE MONTHS AGO, THIS BRUTAL REGIME KILLED AT LEAST, ACCORDING TO ITS OWN NUMBERS, 3,100 INNOCENT IRANIANS.

RELIABLE OUTSIDE SOURCES PUT THE NUMBER IN SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS.

THAT LEVEL OF BRUTALITY HAS GOTTEN MANY PEOPLE, LIKE THE ONES IN YOUR PROGRAM --THAT LITERALLY BROUGHT TEARS TO MY EYES --TO SAY, I AM WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THIS REGIME TO BE FINISHED.

>> LET ME TURN TO YOU, SCOTT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LATEST BOOK OUT, "SHAH OF SHAHS. "

ACTUALLY YOU INTERVIEWED CERTAINLY THE EMPRESS WHO WAS THE QUEEN AT THE TIME OF THE TOPPLING OF THE REVOLUTION.

SHE LEFT WITH HER HUSBAND, THE SHAH.

THEN HE DIED A YEAR LATER.

NOW REZA IS POSITIONING HIMSELF AS THE LEADER IN EXILE.

WHAT DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THOSE LAST DAYS, ABOUT THE SITUATION IN IRAN, AND WHAT MIGHT COME NEXT FROM YOUR INTERVIEWS FOR THIS BOOK?

>> SO TALKING ABOUT THE LAST DAYS, IT'S RATHER POIGNANT.

THE SHAH, WHAT HE TOLD MANY PEOPLE AS THE REVOLUTION WAS GETTING WORSE, MORE VIOLENT, HE TOLD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR AT THE TIME THAT "IF SAVING MY THRONE COMES AT THE COST OF KILLING MY NATION'S YOUTH, I WON'T DO IT. "

AND HE WENT INTO EXILE, I THINK, RATHER THAN DO THAT.

JUST TO PICK UP ON SOMETHING THAT MR.

MELANI SAID, THIS REGIME IN THE FIRST WEEKEND OF JANUARY, BY MOST RELIABLE ESTIMATES, AT LEAST 10,000, A MINIMUM OF 10,000 PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY THIS REGIME.

THAT'S FOUR TIMES THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE KILLED DURING THE YEAR-LONG COURSE OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION.

SO WE'RE IN A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT PLACE, DEALING WITH A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT REGIME THAN WE WERE DEALING WITH UNDER THE SHAH.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO ABBAS MILANI AND THE BAIT AND SWITCH.

I REMEMBER, I WAS IN IRAN DURING THAT YEAR OF REVOLUTION THAT LED TO THE 1979 RETURN OF KHOMENEI.

I REMEMBER BEING QUITE SHOCKED THAT UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, GOVERNMENTS IN THE U. S. , UK, FRANCE, REALLY BELIEVED THAT THIS GUY IN A TURBAN , YOU KNOW, WHO SENT RELIGIOUS CASSETTES BACK TO IRAN, WAS GOING TO BRING WHAT HE SAID WAS DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS.

WHY DO YOU THINK HE HAD SUCH AN EASY JOB OF PERSUADING THE IRANIAN PEOPLE AND, AND THE GOVERNMENTS ABROAD WHO HAD BEEN ALLIED WITH THE SHAH?

>> FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THAT IT IS FOR ME A PLEASURE AND PRIVILEGE TO BE TALKING TO AN ICONIC WOMAN JOURNALIST THAT KNOWS IRAN SO WELL.

SO IT IS FOR ME A PRIVILEGE TO BE TALKING WITH YOU.

BUT I THINK IT WAS EASY BECAUSE KHOMENEI HAD LIVED IN EXILE.

HIS BOOK WHERE HE HAD LAID OUT HIS DRACONIAN DESIGN FOR A MEDIEVAL DESPOTISM WAS BANNED UNDER THE SHAH.

I THINK IN RETROSPECT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANDATORY READING.

AND THERE WAS A ROMANCE THAT MANY OF IRANIAN INTELLECTUALS HAD WITH KHOMENEI, WITH THE IDEA THAT ISLAM IS A LIBERATING FORCE.

IT WASN'T JUST THE AMERICANS THAT WERE FOOLED BY KHOMENEI.

WE HAVE TO FIRST BEGIN WITH OURSELVES.

THE IRANIAN SOCIETY.

ALMOST THE SPIRE GAMUT OF THE LEFT, THE CENTRAL FORCES, MANY WOMAN FORCES, MANY FEMINISTS CAME OUT TO DEFEND SOMEONE WHOSE PAST HERITAGE WAS TO SAY, THE VOTE FOR WOMEN IS THE BEGINNING OF HARLOTRY.

A RELIGIOUS FORCE THAT HAD FOUGHT EVERY EFFORT OF IRANIAN WOMEN FOR FREEDOM.

IF YOU HAD STAYED IN IRAN, THE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION YOU WOULD HAVE HAD WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN POSSIBLE.

IF THESE GUYS HAD THEIR UPPER HAND UNDER THE REGIME, EVERY EFFORT THE SHAH MADE AND HIS FATHER MADE TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF WOMEN IN IRAN WAS FOUGHT BY THIS REGIME, BY THE ADVOCATES OF THIS REGIME, BY KHAMENEI, KHOMENEI, AND PREDECESSORS.

ANYONE WHO SAYS ANYTHING AGAINST THE WEST, COHAYNIE TALKED RADICALLY AGAINST THE WEST, PARTICULARLY AFTER 1963.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, WE NOW KNOW, BETWEEN XENOPHOBIA AND ANTI-COLONIAL DISCOURSE.

KHOMENEI CLEVERLY LODGED HIS XENOPHOBIA, LODGED HIS ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE RHETORIC OF ANTI-COLONIALISM AND ANTI-ZIONISM.

AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE FOOLED BY IT, INCLUDING THE U. S. , INCLUDING EUROPE, AND VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY ELSE.

>> FAST FORWARD TO TODAY, SCOTT ANDERSON.

CERTAINLY WHEN YOU WERE DOING YOUR RESEARCH AND WRITING YOUR BOOK.

THERE'S A HUGE GULF AS ABBAS WAS SAYING BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING OF THE WEST AND IRAN OF EACH OTHER AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON.

FAMOUSLY THAT THE U. S. HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN IRAN.

PRESIDENT CARTER CAME ON THE EVE OF 1978 AND CALLED IT AN ISLAND OF CIVILITY, AND EIGHT DAYS LATER THE REVOLUTION STARTED.

BUT --THE UPRISING STARTED.

BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK IN THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO TAKE OVER, WHAT IS REGIME CHANGE?

TRUMP HAS JUST SAID HE HAS TO BE INVOLVED IN CHOOSING THE NEXT LEADER.

DO YOU GET A SENSE OF WHAT MIGHT BE AN OUTCOME OF THIS?

>> WELL, I'LL ANSWER IT IN TWO WAYS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK OF THIS KIND OF RALLYING AROUND REZA.

PEOPLE MARCHING IN THE STREETS OF TEHRAN BACK IN JANUARY WITH HIS PORTRAIT.

I KIND OF SEE THAT AS --FIRST, KIND OF THE ULTIMATE WAY TO SLAG THE REGIME.

YOU FOR 47 YEARS, THE IRANIAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS DIET OF THE SHAH AS PRETTY MUCH THE DEVIL INCARNATE.

AND WHAT MORE CAN YOU DO TO THUMB YOUR NOSE AT THE REGIME THAN TO EMBRACE HIS SON?

BUT I DO NOT SEE REZA PLAYING A ROLE IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK THAT WHAT -- THE REASON THIS HAS GALVANIZED AROUND HIM IS THAT HE'S THE ONE IDENTIFIABLE OPPOSITION LEADER IN EXILE.

AND IN INTERNALLY, EVERYBODY'S BEEN EXECUTED OR IMPRISONED.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN THIS RALLYING AROUND REZA FOR THAT REASON.

I ALSO THINK THAT --JUST TO PICK UP ON SOMETHING THAT ABBAS WAS SAYING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IDEA --WELL, SORRY.

WHAT TRUMP WAS SAYING ABOUT THIS IDEA OF HE HAS TO PLAY A ROLE.

HOW DO YOU PLAY A ROLE IF YOU DON'T HAVE TROOPS ON THE GROUND?

REGIME CHANGE CAN'T HAPPEN IN IRAN, I BELIEVE, BY BOMBING BY THE AMERICANS AND ISRAELIS, BOMBING THEIR SOPHISTICATED WEAPONRY.

LET'S REMEMBER THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SLAUGHTERED IN JANUARY, THEY WERE KILLED WITH MACHINE GUNS AND SHOTGUNS.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH AIR ATTACK YOU DO, HOW MUCH YOU NEUTRALIZE THE IRANIAN MILITARY, THE WEAPONS OF MURDER THAT THE REGIME HAS USED ARE NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTED.

SO THIS IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THE IRANIAN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RISE UP AND TAKE ON THIS GOVERNMENT THAT JUST TWO MONTHS AGO SLAUGHTERED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, I JUST DON'T SEE HAPPENING.

>> ABBAS, TO YOU, BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE POLLING IN TERMS OF HOW MANY SUPPORTERS THE REGIME MIGHT --HOW MANY ARE TRUE BELIEVERS AND HOW MANY WANT CHANGE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S OFTEN A LOT OF PATRONIZING COMMENTARY FROM THE WEST.

OH, PEOPLE IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD ARE NOT CAPABLE, NOT READY, NOT ABLE TO BE DEMOCRATIC AND FREE AS WE KNOW IT.

YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I DO THAT IRAN HAS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES TOWARDS DEMOCRACY AND PARLIAMENTARY PROCESSES, LET'S SAY FROM 1908.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE LIKELIHOOD OF WHATEVER HAPPENS NOW LEADING TO A FREE, DEMOCRATIC, AND, YOU KNOW, AND UNIFIED FUTURE.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW HOW SCOTT KNOWS WHAT THE IRANIAN PEOPLE FEEL WHEN THEY SHOUT FOR SOMEBODY.

I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A SENSE OF PROFOUND DISSATISFACTION.

THEY HAVE A SENSE OF NOSTALGIA.

AND THEY COMPARE IRAN IN 1977 WITH IRAN TODAY.

AND THEY THINK THE IRAN OF YESTERYEAR WAS FAR BETTER THAN ANYTHING THIS REGIME HAS TO OFFER.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT THE PEOPLE'S SLOGANS MEAN.

LET ME GIVE YOU TWO STUDIES.

ONE IS THE STUDY THAT WE DID AT IRANIAN STUDIES AT STANFORD.

AND THIS IS NOW ONLINE.

PEOPLE CAN GO LOOK AT IT.

THIS IS A VERY DETAILED STUDY OF DEMONSTRATIONS IN TEHRAN FROM 2009 TO 2024.

EVERY THIRD DAY, EVERY THIRD DAY IN TEHRAN, THERE HAS EEN CREDIBLE, REGISTERED, LOCATED DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THIS REGIME.

SO PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN THEY DON'T WANT STATUS QUO.

THEY HAVE SHOWN IT PEACEFULLY.

THEY HAVE FACED PRISON.

THE REGIME HAS GONE ON KILLING SPREES ON ALMOST EVERY MAJOR DEMONSTRATION.

IN TERMS OF THE POPULARITY, THE CROWN PRINCE HAS BY THE MOST CREDIBLE POLL THAT I HAVE SEEN AT LEAST 30% OF THE POPULATION.

30% OF THE POPULATION ARE CRITICAL OF HIM, AND 30% ARE UNDECIDED.

SO MY SENSE IS --AND I WROTE A PIECE IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" TWO DAYS AGO.

I SAID, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE OF IRAN SEEM TO CLEARLY WANT, AND THAT'S A SECULAR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.

AN END TO THIS REGIME.

AND A SECULAR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY MEANS TO ME THAT THE FUTURE OF IRAN HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PEOPLE OF IRAN.

IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN ISRAEL.

IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN WASHINGTON.

THEY CAN HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY.

THEY CAN FIGHT THIS REGIME.

BUT THE PEOPLE OF IRAN HAVE TO DECIDE THEIR FUTURE.

THEY ARE READY.

THEY ARE NEEDING OF HELP.

BUT NOT THE HELP THAT SAYS, I'M GOING TO DECIDE YOUR FUTURE IF I'M GOING TO HELP YOU.

>> GREAT CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONTEXT, PROFESSOR ABBAS MILANI AND PROFESSOR SCOTT ANDERSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH INDEED.

> >> DEFENSE SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH HAS DESCRIBED ANOTHER DAY OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION RAINING DOWN, THAT'S A QUOTE ON IRAN.

WHILE ALSO IN WASHINGTON, DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ARE TRYING TO REIN IN THE PRESIDENT.

TODAY THE HOUSE TOOK UP THE CHALLENGE AFTER THOSE SENATORS YESTERDAY FAILED TO INVOKE THE WAR POWERS ACT.

BUT OUR NEXT GUEST ARGUES THAT LAWMAKERS STILL CAN AND SHOULD PUSH BACK.

NOAH FELDMAN IS A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR SPEAKING JUST BEFORE THE SENATE VOTE.

HE REMINDS HARRY HOW LETTING PAST PRESIDENTS GO UNCHECKED LED TO THIS MOMENT NOW.

>> YOU WROTE AN OP-ED RECENTLY IN "BLOOMBERG" OPINION SECTION.

IT SAID, WHEN YOU BOMB A COUNTRY AND TAKE OUT ITS LEADER, THAT'S AN ACT OF WAR.

I GUESS A FAIRLY SIMPLE, BASIC DEFINITIONAL QUESTION.

ARE WE AT WAR RIGHT NOW OR NOT?

>> UNDER ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW DEFINITION, WE'RE ABSOLUTELY AT WAR.

AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE WORD WAR TAKES ON BOARD THE MEANING THAT COMES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF WAR.

I WOULD SAY UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, YES, WE'RE ABSOLUTELY AT WAR RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE SHOOTING, THEY'RE SHOOTING.

WE TOOK OUT THEIR SUPREME LEADER.

COUNTRIES HAVE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN SUPREME LEADER EVEN IF WE HATE THAT SUPREME LEADER.

SO YEAH, IT'S A WAR.

>> TRUMP'S MILITARY STRIKE IN IRAN IS FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE PART AND PARCEL OF A PATTERN THAT AMERICAN PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN PRACTICING FOR QUITE A WHILE.

SO IF YOU COULD REFRESH OUR AUDIENCE, HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT WHERE THE PRESIDENT, A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CAN LAUNCH A MILITARY ATTACK ON ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT HAVING TO LET CONGRESS KNOW OR GET PERMISSION?

>> IT HAPPENED IN THREE STAGES.

AT THE FIRST BEGINNING OF OUR COUNTRY, THERE WAS REALLY NO WAY THAT A PRESIDENT COULD MAKE WAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR CONGRESS TO DECLARE IT.

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A STANDING ARMY.

THAT MEANS THERE WEREN'T ANY --NOT VERY MANY AT ALL U. S. MILITARY TROOPS TO SAY NOTHING OF FIVE OR SIX WARSHIPS, DEFINITELY NO PLANES.

SO IF THEY STARTED A WAR, IF THE EXECUTIVE STARTED A WAR, CONGRESS HAD TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS TO PAY THE SOLDIERS, TO BUILD THE SHIPS, SO FORTH AND SO ON.

SO THE SYSTEM WAS SET UP UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO SAY, CONGRESS HAS TO DECLARE WAR AND ONLY THEN CAN A PRESIDENT DO IT, AND IT WORKED.

AFTER WORLD WAR II, WE BUILT UP THE BIGGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD, THEN WE HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

SO THE PRESIDENT COULD TAKE OUT A WHOLE CIVILIZATION WITH THE PRESS OF A BUTTON.

AND WE KEEP OUR MILITARY GOING.

ONCE THAT HAPPENED, IT BECAME MUCH HARDER TO STOP THE PRESIDENT FROM USING MILITARY FORCE.

AND THINGS KIND OF REACHED A HEAD IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION WHEN RICHARD NIXON BOMBED CAMBODIA AND LAOS SECRETLY.

IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT NOW BUT HE DID IT SECRETLY.

EXPANDED THE VIETNAM WAR WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS.

CONGRESS SAID, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

THEY PASSED A LAW CALLED THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.

IT SAYS WHEN A PRESIDENT ATTACKS AND ENGAGES IN HOSTILITIES AGAINST A FOREIGN COUNTRY, HE'S GOT TWO DAYS TO TELL CONGRESS HE'S DOING IT, SO NO SECRETS.

AND THEN AFTER 60 DAYS, UNLESS CONGRESS AUTHORIZES THE HOSTILITIES, THEY'RE ILLEGAL.

SO THAT'S THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT'S IN PLACE.

NIXON DIDN'T LIKE IT BUT CONGRESS PASSED IT OVER NIXON'S VETO, SO TWO-THIRDS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE PASSED IT.

THAT'S THE LAW PRESENTLY.

BUT HERE'S THE BIG BUT.

IF THE PRESIDENT VIOLATES THE LAW, THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH THAT CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT.

SO BILL CLINTON WAS BOMBING KOSOVO.

HE WENT TWO WEEKS BEYOND THE DEADLINE AND HE JUST DID IT.

CONGRESS DIDN'T LIKE IT BUT IT HAPPENED ANYWAY.

THEN BARACK OBAMA DECIDED TO BOMB LIBYA, AND HE DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO GET AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS AT ALL.

HE GOT AN OPINION FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTRADICTING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT SAID, THAT IF YOU'RE BOMBING A COUNTRY FROM THE AIR, FOR A LIMITED OBJECTIVE, THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH RISK OF ESCALATION AND NOT MUCH RISK TO U. S. TROOPS SO YOU CAN JUST DO IT, AND IT DOESN'T EVEN COUNT AS HOSTILITIES FOR PURPOSES OF THE LAW.

NOW, THAT'S RIDICULOUS AND YOU CAN SEE WHY, BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP JUST DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING IN BOMBING IRAN AND WE'RE AT WAR.

PEOPLE ARE FIGHTING BACK.

U. S. TROOPS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUT IN HARM'S WAY, AND SOME TRAGICALLY HAVE DIED.

>> OKAY, SO IF CONGRESS IS HAVING THESE DEBATES, WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION TUESDAY AFTERNOON, SOMEWHERE IN THIS WEEK THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE MAY TRY TO BRING THIS UP.

IS THIS ENTIRELY THEATRICAL?

BECAUSE WHAT'S THE POINT?

I MEAN, WE LITERALLY ARE DOING SOMETHING TO ANOTHER COUNTRY NOW.

THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THIS ACTION ALMOST UNILATERALLY.

AND HIS LAWYERS WILL SAY, I'M DOING WHAT SEVERAL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE, SO I DON'T REALLY CARE IF I GET YOUR APPROVAL RIGHT NOW OR NOT.

>> SO HARI, I AGREE WITH YOUR DESCRIPTION, BUT I WOULDN'T USE THE WORD THEATRICAL AND HERE'S WHY.

>> OKAY.

>> CONGRESS PASSES A WAR POWERS RESOLUTION THAT SAYS, MR.

PRESIDENT, YOU NEED AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS, AND YOU DON'T HAVE IT.

TRUMP WILL VETO IT, THERE'S NO QUESTION.

AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A TWO- THIRDS MAJORITY TO OVERCOME THE VETO.

WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE BOTH PARTIES THOUGHT CONGRESS' POWER WAS MORE POWERFUL.

IN THAT SENSE YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP THE FIGHT, IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP THE WAR.

THE REASON IT'S MORE THAN THEATRICAL IS CONGRESS IS A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND THE ONLY THING IT CAN DO UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO START WITH IS INSIST ON ITS OWN AUTHORITY.

AND OVER TIME, IF CONGRESS REALLY HAD THE GUTS TO DO IT, THEY COULD REDUCE FUNDING.

THEY COULD PASS ANOTHER LAW THAT SAID, MR.

PRESIDENT, YOU CAN'T USE FUNDS THAT WE'VE ALLOCATED TO YOU TO FIGHT THIS WAR.

AND ALTHOUGH IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING, THAT'S HOW CONGRESS GETS ITS POWER BACK.

CONGRESS HAS TO FIND A WAY TO RE-ESTABLISH SOME OF ITS POWER OVER A DECLARATION OF HOSTILITY AND WAR.

>> YOU KNOW -- EXACTLY WHAT CONSTITUTES AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE HOMELAND?

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE HERE OF AN IMMEDIATE THREAT POSED TO THE AMERICAN HOMELAND, SO TO SPEAK?

OR MAYBE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBJECTIVES STATED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

ONE WAS TO DEFEND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY ELIMINATING IMMINENT THREATS FROM THE IRANIAN REGIME.

WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN ISRAELI ACTION.

WE KNEW THAT THAT WOULD PRECIPITATE ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICAN FORCES, AND WE HAD TO SORT OF GO IN PRE-EMPTIVELY.

I MEAN, HOW DO YOU REASON OUT WHAT THE CASE IS THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN MAKE OR PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN MAKE TO CONGRESS TO SAY, THIS ACTION'S JUSTIFIED?

>> WELL, HARI, YOU'RE REALLY GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER NOW.

BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT DISPUTES THAT IF A COUNTRY INVADED US, THE PRESIDENT COULD DEFEND US UNILATERALLY.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

IF A COUNTRY WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK US OR ATTACK OUR TROOPS OR INVADE US, THAT'S ALSO GOING TO COUNT AS AN IMMINENT THREAT.

THEN YOU GET INTO THE TRICKY QUESTION OF HOW IMMINENT DOES IT HAVE TO BE?

HOW IMMINENT IS IMMINENT?

AND WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION JUST DECLARES, WELL, WE'RE UNDER IMMINENT THREAT, THAT DECLARATION COULD BE TRUE, BUT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE SOME FACTS THAT SUPPORT THAT INTERPRETATION.

THE IDEA THAT ISRAEL WAS GOING TO ATTACK INEVITABLY AND THAT THEN THAT WOULD LEAD TO RETALIATION AGAINST US SO THAT WE SHOULD ACT INEVITABLY, IT'S A POSSIBLE ARGUMENT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT OF COURSE, ISRAEL IS ALSO OUR ALLY AND THIS WAS A COORDINATED ATTACK.

AND IF THE PRESIDENT HAD SAID TO PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU, LISTEN, DON'T ATTACK THIS DAY, ATTACK THIS OTHER DAY.

OR ATTACK AT THIS OTHER TIME.

OR DON'T ATTACK AT ALL.

IT'S CERTAINLY CONCEIVABLE THAT ISRAEL WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH THAT.

IN FACT, I THINK IT'S PROBABLE.

AND SO FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SAY, THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT SO WE HAD TO ACT PRE-EMPTIVELY, CREATES A KIND OF - -IT'S A KIND OF SLIPPERY SLOPE, THAT BASICALLY UNDER ALMOST ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WE COULD GENERATE A JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING TO WAR.

SO TO BE CLEAR, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS QUESTION HAS ARISEN.

THERE WAS A HUGE NATIONAL DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD GO TO WAR IN IRAQ AND WHETHER SADDAM DID HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, WHICH HE DID NOT, IT TURNED OUT, IN THE END.

SO IT'S NOT A SIMPLE QUESTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID ACTUALLY GET CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORS FOR INVADING IRAQ, FAMOUSLY, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND SO THE JUSTIFICATION MATTERS, NOT JUST FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH DOESN'T CARE WHETHER CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT DID IT, BUT FOR OUR OWN DOMESTIC CONSTITUTION AT LAW.

JUST THE LAST THING I'LL ADD, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THIS CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU THINK THE WAR IS A GREAT IDEA OR A TERRIBLE IDEA.

THOSE ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT QUESTIONS.

YOU COULD BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY WAR THAT IS GOING TO ADVANCE U. S. INTERESTS, AND IT'S A GREAT THING --AND THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND YOU COULD ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA, BUT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.

THEY'RE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

>> SO I GUESS --PLAY IT OUT FOR ME WHY CONGRESS SHOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF TAKING THIS VOTE, PUTTING THIS ON THE RECORD.

WHAT SORT OF EITHER SUPPORT OR REGATHERING OF THEIR OWN STRENGTH DOES THIS MEAN FOR CONGRESS?

>> IN THE STORY I WAS TELLING ABOUT HOW WE GOT HERE, IT'S A STORY ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE TAKING MORE AND MORE POWER.

DOESN'T MATTER WHAT PARTY THE PRESIDENT WAS.

TWO DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS PLAYED A BIG ROLE IN THAT TOO.

AND CONGRESS NOT REALLY DOING MUCH ABOUT IT.

AND THAT'S HOW, OVER THE LONG- TERM, ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT LOSES POWER TO ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH, IF ONE PERSON TAKES ADVANTAGE AND THE OTHER PERSON DOESN'T SAY, HEY, YOU CAN'T DO THIS, THIS IS NOT NORMAL, THIS IS NOT OKAY --THEN MORE ADVANTAGE KEEPS BEING TAKEN OVER TIME.

AND THAT'S WHY CONGRESS HAS TO SPEAK OUT.

EVEN IF IT CAN'T IN THE SHORT-TERM ACTIVELY BLOCK THE PRESIDENT, IT HAS TO CREATE THE RECORD TO CREATE THE NORM THAT THIS IS NOT NORMAL, THAT THIS IS NOT OKAY.

AND IF THERE'S SUSTAINED OBJECTION OVER TIME, THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

ONE MORE ANALOGY FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

YOU KNOW, WE SAW IN MINNESOTA THAT WHEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, WAS VIOLATING THE LAW PRETTY REGULARLY, THE COURTS WERE SAYING THEY WERE VIOLATING THE LAW.

AND PEOPLE STOOD UP AND PROTESTED IN A LONG-RUN, SERIOUS, SUSTAINED WAY.

THE EFFECT WAS THAT ULTIMATELY, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAD TO BACK DOWN TO SOME MEANINGFUL DEGREE.

SO CREATING SUSTAINED RESISTANCE SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT THE LAW IS REAL, THAT THE LAW IS THE LAW, THAT WE'RE NOT AFRAID TO STAND UP FOR THE LAW.

AND THAT MAKES THE RULE OF LAW STRONGER.

AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT THING TO KEEP IN MIND FOR CONGRESS JUST THE SAME WAY IT IS FOR CITIZENS.

>> LET'S SAY THEY VOTE ON THIS, THE RESOLUTION FAILS.

IS THERE ANY RECOURSE THAT CONGRESS HAS TO DECREASE THE HARM BEING DONE RIGHT NOW?

>> CONGRESS HAS THE POWER OF THE PURSE.

SO IF A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS WERE TO PASS A LAW THAT PROHIBITED EXPENDITURES, SAY, OF ALDATED FUNDS FOR PURPOSES OF FIGHTING THIS WAR, THEN THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE AN IMPACT.

BUT AGAIN THAT WOULD HAVE TO AN LAW, SO DONALD TRUMP COULD VETO THAT.

AND REALISTICALLY THERE WOULD NOT BE THE VOTES TO PASS THE VETO, ALMOST CERTAINLY.

AGAIN, THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A STEP OF RECOGNIZING THIS IS NOT NORMAL, THIS IS NOT OKAY.

BUT I WOULD NOT ON ITS OWN FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM IT.

SO TO BE REALISTIC, WE'RE IN THIS NOW, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE IN THIS WAR.

>> SO WHAT ARE THE PARALLELS HERE BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE WENT INTO IRAQ IN 2003 --I'M ASKING BECAUSE YOU WERE ADVISING THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT AND DRAFTING --HELPING DRAFT ITS INTERIM CONSTITUTION.

I MEAN, DO YOU SEE THIS AS BEING MARKEDLY DIFFERENT?

>> I SHOULD JUST SAY, I ADVISED IN TWO STAGES.

FIRST, I WAS AN ADVISER TO OUR FORCES, THE COALITION AUTHORITY, THE CIVILIAN FORCE THAT WE HAD IN IRAQ.

THEN I TRANSITIONED TO WORKING DIRECTLY WITH IRAQIS, WHO DRAFTED THEIR INTERIM CONSTITUTION.

I THINK THIS IS SO FAR PRETTY DIFFERENT, EVEN THOUGH THE EARLY STAGES LOOK KIND OF SIMILAR.

SO IN 2003, WE STARTED FAMOUSLY WITH THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE SHOCK AND AWE CAMPAIGN, WHICH WAS A VERY TARGETED SERIES OF ATTACKS FROM THE AIR FOCUSING ON GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

IT WAS HARD TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES THERE WERE, BUT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GREATER THAN WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW.

AGAIN, THE FOG OF WAR MAKES IT HARD TO KNOW THAT FOR SURE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON NOW.

IT STARTED THAT WAY BUT WE HAD ALSO AMASSED IN KUWAIT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS WHO WERE GETTING READY TO INVADE THE COUNTRY.

AND NO ONE WAS IN ANY SERIOUS DOUBT THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.

THAT'S WHERE THE PARALLEL REALLY COMES TO AN END.

WE'RE NOT DOING THAT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

AND WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT DOING IT.

AND SO IN THE GAME THEORY OF WAR, AS THE IRANIAN REGIME TRIES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IN RESPONSE TO TRY TO STAY ALIVE, WHICH IS WHAT ANY REGIME WILL ALWAYS TRY TO DO, THEY KNOW WE'RE NOT COMING IN WITH TROOPS.

AND SO IT APPEARS THAT THEIR STRATEGY WILL BE, AT LEAST THUS FAR, TO TRY TO BROADEN THE WAR TO RETALIATE ASYMMETRICALLY AGAINST U. S. TROOPS AND MAYBE EVENTUALLY U. S. CIVILIANS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE REGION, POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT WARTS OF THE WORLD, AND SEE IF THEY CAN RAISE THE COST TO THE UNITED STATES OF OUR CONTINUED BOMBING AND SEE IF WE'LL GIVE UP.

IF WE GIVE UP AT THAT POINT, THEY WILL STILL HAVE SUFFERED AN ENORMOUS BLOW TO THEIR NATIONAL POWER AND THEIR NATIONAL PRESTIGE.

>> WE LOOK AT THESE KIND OF STRUCTURAL HURDLES.

ONE IS THIS ALMOST PERPETUAL REAUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

AND THAT REALLY GOES BACK TO POST-9/11.

WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT FOR CONGRESS TO SORT OF TACKLE REGULARLY?

>> WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZES USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN AN OPEN-ENDED WAY, AS HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 18th, 2001, THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO A PRESIDENT TO CONNECT THE DON'T TELLS, AS IT WERE, AND SAY, OH, THIS PART, THIS CONFLICT, IS CONNECTED TO THAT PART OF THAT CONFLICT, WHICH TAKES US ALL THE WAY BACK TO AL QAEDA, THEN I'M AUTHORIZED IN TAKING THESE ACTIONS.

SO IT WOULD BE A GREAT THING FOR CONGRESS TO DO THE CLEANUP THAT'S NECESSARY SOMETIMES, AND IT'S HARD POLITICALLY, AND SAY THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE THAT WE PASSED AT THIS TIME IS NOW OFFICIALLY OVER.

WE'RE CLOSING THE BOOK ON THAT PARTICULAR CHAPTER.

IN THIS CASE, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HASN'T YET BEEN ABLE TO CLAIM THAT A PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF MILITARY FORCE CREDIBLY COVERS THIS ATTACK ON IRAN.

BUT THAT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT DOES HAPPEN SOMETIMES.

AND SO BEST PRACTICES, IF YOU'RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE FORCE, SOMETIMES YOU SAY, OKAY, IT'S OVER NOW.

I'M JUST ADD THERE THAT HISTORICALLY, WHEN CONGRESS DECLARED A WAR, THE WAR HAD A BEGINNING.

THEY DECLARED IT.

THEN IT HAD AN END WHEN ONE SIDE, USUALLY THE OTHER SIDE, FORTUNATELY FOR THE UNITED STATES, GAVE UP AND SIGNED A PEACE TREATY.

BUT NOW WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE A CONFLICT AGAINST A TERRORIST GROUP THAT'S NEVER GOING TO ANNOUNCE THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A REAL THREAT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNILATERAL ACT ON OUR PART TO SAY THE WAR IS OVER.

AND THAT'S POLITICALLY HARD TO GET CONGRESS TO SAY.

>> YOU WERE ON THE PROGRAM WHAT SEEMS LIKE A DOG YEAR AGO, BACK IN FEBRUARY OF '25.

YOU SAID AT THAT TIME, LOOK, A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WHEN IS THESE TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE STARING EACH OTHER DOWN.

BOTH ARE UNWILLING TO BACK DOWN.

WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET, I THINK IS WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT.

ARE WE THERE NOW?

>> WE'RE NOT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS NOW UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT I LIKE TO USE, THAT YOU JUST QUOTED.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT COMPLETELY LYING OVER, ROLLING OVER AND PLAYING DEAD.

THE SUPREME COURT DID BLOCK THE TARIFFS THAT DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCED, HIS SIGNATURE, BOTH FOREIGN POLICY AND DOMESTIC INITIATIVE.

THAT'S A HUGE DEAL.

IT'S NOT EVERYTHING I WISH THE SUPREME COURT WOULD DO, BUT IT'S NOT NOTHING.

IT DESERVES TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED.

AND DONALD TRUMP DID NOT RESPOND TO THAT BY SAYING, WHO CARES WHO YOU ARE, I'M IGNORING YOU.

IF HE HAD DONE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

INSTEAD, TRUMP SAID, I'M GOING TO RELY ON OTHER SOURCES OF LEGAL AUTHORITY.

I'M GOING TO TRY AGAIN AND GIVE THE COURT A CHANCE TO RULE AGAIN.

SO THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT MOMENT OF NOT BEING IN A CRISIS.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ATTACK ON IRAN, THAT DOESN'T GENERATE A CRISIS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NOT, BY A MAJORITY, PASSED A LAW OR EVEN BY VETO APPROVED MAJORITY SAYING, YOU CAN'T DO THIS.

SO THERE'S NO HEAD- TO- HEAD DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

LOTS OF PEOPLE IN CONGRESS THINK THIS WAR MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND IS WORTH TAKING A RISK ON AND ARE WILLING, THEREFORE, TO MAKE SECONDARY THE CONCERN OF THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT VIS-A-VIS CONGRESS.

SO THERE'S ENOUGH AGREEMENT THERE THAT I WOULD NOT CALL IT A CRISIS.

>> YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES IT DO GOING FORWARD WITH WHOEVER THE NEXT PRESIDENT IS, WHATEVER THEIR INTERESTS ARE IN TAKING MILITARY ACTION?

DOES THIS MOVE THAT GATE A LITTLE FURTHER OUT, SAYING, WELL, NOT ONLY DO I HAVE REFERENCE TO WHAT PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON DID IN KOSOVO AND H. W. BUSH DID IN PANAMA AND OBAMA DID IN OTHER PLACES --I ALSO HAVE THIS, LOOK AT WHAT WE DID IN VENEZUELA, LOOK AT WHAT WE DID IN IRAN?

>> YES.

EVERY EXTENSION OF EXECUTIVE POWER BECOMES A PRECEDENT THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT, REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY THAT HE OR SHE IS, CAN FOLLOW.

SO WE'RE GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL IDEA THAT CONGRESS IS THE PEOPLE'S BRANCH AND IT DECLARES WAR.

AND FURTHER AND FURTHER IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE CALLED IMPERIAL DIRECTION WHERE THE PRESIDENT GETS TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS BASICALLY UNILATERALLY.

AND THAT'S WHY ARTHUR SCHLESSINGER IN THE '70s SAID, WE HAVE AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY.

IF YOU LOOK NOW YOU'D SAY, IT WASN'T IMPERIAL AT ALL THEN, BUT NOW IT'S GETTING REALLY AND REALLY IMPERIAL.

IT'S GETTING US FURTHER AWAY FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN THAT PUT CONGRESS IN CHARGE OF WHETHER WE WENT TO WAR.

>> HARVARD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

> >> FINALLY ON TOMORROW'S PROGRAM, I'VE REACHED MEHDI IN TEHRAN, A POLITICAL DISSIDENT AND COWRITER OF THE FILM "IT WAS JUST AN ACCIDENT," A MOVIE INSPIRED BY HIS OWN INCARCERATION AND TORTURE.

HE'S OUT OF PRISON ON BAIL AFTER PROTESTING THE REGIME'S VIOLENT CRACKDOWN ON DISSENT.

STILL, HE IS BRAVELY CALLING FOR CHANGE IN HIS NATION WHILE IT'S AT WAR.

AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP RIVER I NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.

ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANKS FOR WATCHING, AND GOOD-BYE FOR NOW.