Could The Iran Nuclear Attacks Backfire? - Amanpour - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Could The Iran Nuclear Attacks Backfire? Amanpour 58 mins
The primary goal of Israeli and American attacks on Iran was to remove the country's "existential" nuclear threat. But what if the attacks have the opposite effect, motivating the Iran to pull of the non-proliferation treaty and resume their nuclear program covertly? In parliament, Iranian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to suspend cooperation with the IAEA. This means that Iran would halt inspections, reporting and oversight activities. Iran always insisted its nuclear program is peaceful. For some perspective, we bring you Christiane's 1995 report on her visit to Iran's earliest nuclear power plant in Bushehr.
Also on today's show: Gary Samore, former White House Coordinator for Arms Control; Elaine Sciolino, author of "Adventures in the Louvre"; Mark Henson, Dir. of Federal Advocacy and Government Affairs, The Trevor Project
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Donald Trump's Head-Spinning Foreign Policy
WASHINGTON—President Trump hasn't sounded much like Donald Trump in recent days. He said the U.S. needed to attack Iran over a growing nuclear threat, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wasn't ripping off America and that Russian President Vladimir Putin was an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine. It was a remarkable shift for a president who said he would extract the U.S. from foreign entanglements, once called NATO obsolete and often has avoided criticizing Moscow.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate rejects effort to restrain Trump on Iran as GOP backs his strikes on nuclear sites
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Donald Trump from further escalating with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress' first attempt to reassert its war powers following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The resolution, authored by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday if he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, 'Sure, without question.' The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor. Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval. 'Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,' said Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn. 'But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.' Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress' first briefings taking place Thursday. 'The idea is this: We shouldn't send our sons and daughters into war unless there's a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,' Kaine said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn't aimed at restricting the president's ability to defend against a threat, but that "if it's offense, let's really make sure we're making the right decision.' In a statement following Friday's vote, Kaine said he was 'disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress" should be a part of a decision to go to war. Democrats' argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.' Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday's vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that 'despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.' 'It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations,' said Paul. Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he's done so at a time when he's often bristling at the nation's checks and balances. Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.' But following classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat truly was. 'There was no imminent threat to the United States,' said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday's classified briefings. 'There's always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,' Himes said. Despite Democratic skepticism, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump's decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they're working to pass his major legislative package. Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump's authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving the resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young. After Thursday's classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was 'confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat' and that, given Trump's stated goal of no further escalation, 'I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.' 'Should the Administration's posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,' Young said in a statement. Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the ayatollah warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran. White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled. ___ Associated Press reporter Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Senate fails to advance Iran War Powers resolution
The Senate on Friday rejected a Democrat-pushed resolution that aimed to rein in the president's ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, originally introduced the resolution last week, under the War Powers Act of 1973, before President Donald Trump authorized US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The resolution would have required congressional approval for any further strikes on Iran that are not in self-defense or due to imminent danger. 'I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person,' Kaine said on the Senate floor on Friday. 'War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person.' Lawmakers voted against advancing it to the Senate floor, 53-47. GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats to advance the resolution. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted against it. Friday's vote was a notable departure from a similar war powers vote in 2020 related to Iran, in which eight Republicans voted with Democrats, seven of whom are still in the Senate. GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of those who had voted for the 2020 resolution and is now up for reelection, wrote on X Thursday, 'I'll be voting with Republicans against the war power resolution. When we're talking about nuclear weapons, the president should have the discretion he needs to act.' Indiana Sen. Todd Young, who also joined Democrats to back the resolution five years ago, said in his own post, 'Based on President Trump's stated goal of no further military action against Iran and conversations with senior national security officials regarding the Administration's future intentions, I do not believe an Iran war powers resolution is necessary at this time.' Sen. Susan Collins of Maine added, 'I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now. The President has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.' Paul declared he would back the resolution in a speech on the floor, in which he insisted Congress assert its constitutional authority. 'If we are to ask our young men and women to fight, and potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted,' he said. 'Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce US troops into wars is an affront to the constitution, and the American people.' Paul also warned that no one can predict how the Israel-Iran conflict could progress. 'History is replete with examples of leaders who in their hubris thought they could shape the fate of nations, but were subsequently proven wrong as events ended up controlling them,' he said. 'Pandora's box has been opened,' added Paul. 'Congress must now focus its effort on de-escalation and preventing the call for regime change – the consequences of which, if applied to Iran, risk the total destabilization of the Middle East.' The House could bring up its own Democrat-led war powers resolution after July 4. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has faced heavy backlash from the administration for criticizing the strikes on Iran, had also introduced a war powers resolution as well, but ultimately decided not to bring it up amid a ceasefire in the Iran-Israel conflict. House Speaker Mike Johnson has sharply criticized members for demanding Trump receive congressional approval for strikes on Iran, adding that he doesn't believe the War Powers Act is constitutional. 'Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article Two powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right,' Johnson told reporters on Tuesday. He also called allegations that the strikes on Iran were unconstitutional, or even impeachable, 'outrageous.' 'It would be comical if it were not so serious and stupid. Let me be clear and be as clear as possible: the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were clearly within President Trump's Article Two powers as commander in chief. It shouldn't even be in dispute,' he said. Other Republicans also sharply criticized the resolution, with former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell warning in a statement that it was 'divorced from both strategic and constitutional reality.' 'Was degrading Iran's nuclear capability without expanding the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East a mistake? Was it wrong to seize the rare opportunity made possible by Israel's operations over the last 20 months? Did it not demonstrably advance U.S. interests in the region? Or are isolationists correct in suggesting that such interests do not exist?' he asked.
