Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former CDC Vaccine Expert Fiona Havers; Interview with The Brooking Institution Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Suzanne Maloney; Interview with Johns Hopkins University Associate Professor of Middle East Studies Narges Bajoghli; Interview with International Crisis Group Senior Analyst for Mexico David Mora. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 28, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up. The White House fires new CDC director over
vaccine clashes, leaving the health agency in turmoil. Former CDC official Fiona Havers will join me with more.
Then snapback sanctions on Iran. Could they bring Tehran to the table finally or push Iran towards a bomb? I ask expert Narges Bajoghli and
former State Department adviser, Suzanne Maloney.
Also, ahead, a notorious Mexican drug lord pleads guilty in America, but will U.S. intervention help or hinder the cartel crackdown in Mexico? We'll
break it all down with analyst David Mora.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The White House has fired the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Susan Monarez, after only one month in the position. Now,
this comes just days after she reportedly clashed with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his stance on vaccines.
At first, she refused to resign, but then the White House stepped in to ouster. In a statement, her lawyers pulled no punches, writing, the attacks
on Dr. Monarez is a warning to every American, our evidence-based systems are being undermined from within. Several other top CDC officials announced
that they too were quitting in her wake, leaving the health agency in turmoil.
So, what does this mean for public health in America and for the pandemic? Dr. Fiona Havers is a former CDC official and infectious disease expert.
She resigned from her post as a senior vaccine adviser in June, citing concerns about changes to the vaccine's processes under Secretary Kennedy.
She joins me now from Atlanta to assess the very latest.
Dr. Havers, thank you so much for joining us. So, Dr. Monarez, we should note, was appointed by President Trump, was just confirmed a few weeks ago.
She reportedly refused to fire CDC officials and leaders and rubber stamp vaccines and some of the changes to the vaccines that Secretary Kennedy had
been picking and pushing for. What is her firing mean for the agency?
DR. FIONA HAVERS, FORMER CDC VACCINE EXPERT: Yes. Thank you very much for having me on the show. I think her firing is very ominous for the agency. I
think not only her firing, but the departure of several other very senior longstanding career CDC and public health officials, I think is devastating
for the agency and is further an indication of RFK Jr.'s assault on the public health institutions in the United States.
I think CDC was already reeling from a violent attack that occurred on August 8th, just, you know, not even three weeks ago where a gunman opened
fire on the agency, killing a police officer and putting the lives of hundreds of my former colleagues at risk. And I think, so the agency has
been in turmoil, but I think that this is yet another step of, you know, the full-scale assaults of this administration on CDC and public health in
America.
GOLODRYGA: And as we noted, she reportedly refused to rubber stamp some of the vaccine changes that RFK Jr.'s handpicked panel had been pushing
forward. Can you walk us through what those vaccine changes were?
DR. HAVERS: Yes. So, I don't have specific knowledge of the exact precipitating events that happened this week, but I do know that RFK Jr.
has been interfering in a very heavy-handed way in CDC's vaccine policy process. He fired the advisory committee on immunization practices, all 17
members about two months ago. This is a group that gives expert advice to CDC, which then leads to the official CDC vaccine policy for the United
States, which ends up dictating insurance coverage and what vaccines are available in the United States. So, it's a very important committee.
He then handpicked a number of people who were with known anti-vaccine views and has been sort of upending all of the processes around --
definitely around COVID vaccines. There was a vote that was completely out of line and not how CDC usually does things for a certain type of flu
vaccine containing an additive. And then, they are announcing that there's going to be an ad hoc meeting in September, and it looks like they're
planning to vote on COVID vaccines, but potentially also revisiting the vaccine schedule for things like the hepatitis B birth dose that is given
to children in America and potentially RSV and other vaccines.
[13:05:00]
So, I think that this administration has basically conducted a full-on assault on U.S. vaccine policy to advance an anti-vaccine agenda. While
announcing vaccine policy changes, saying their CDC policy changes, but completely cutting CDC experts and sort of vetted experts, outside experts
in the normal processes that CDC usually has to conduct transparent, evidence-based, science-based policy. So, I think -- yes.
GOLODRYGA: No. I think it's pretty clear you're sounding the alarm like so many others, case in point, a number of these experts who have resigned in
protest to this ouster of Dr. Monarez. And let's just list who some of these several CDC experts and leaders are who have resigned. Drebra Hour.
She is the agency's chief medical officer. She built the agency's opioid response program. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center
for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Dr. Daskalakis helped the nation cope with the Mpox outbreak. Dr. Dan Jernigan, he's the director of the
National Center for Emergency and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. He was deeply involved in the agency's response to Anthrax, swine flu, and COVID.
And last, but all, not least, Dr. Jennifer Layden, she's a director of the Office of Public Health Data Surveillance and Technology that helped
establish the COVID Strategic Science Unit.
It's pretty clear all of these people had very important high-level jobs and have worked on many outbreaks in the past, in epidemics. Talk about the
significance of their resignation. I know that you'd been perhaps even more alarmed by theirs than the firing of the CDC director herself.
DR. HAVERS: Yes. No, I've worked with several of these personally for a number of years -- several of these people personally for a number of
years, and they were some of the most senior leaders in public health in America with many -- in many cases, decades of experience. And I think that
they had been a consistent voice for championing science and championing CDC's mission to protect America's public health in the face of this
assault by the administration and by RFK Jr.
The fact that they are leaving is very disturbing and I think very disheartening for people at CDC and people in the public health community
because they know that the departure of these senior leaders indicates that things are very, very bad indeed within CDC. And I think many of them are
leaving because they felt like they could no longer do their job. And that the attacks from the administration, on public health, and on science are -
- were very extreme.
GOLODRYGA: You, as we noted, also have recently resigned from your job. Do you feel that now a few months later having done so, you have more of an
effective voice from outside of the administration agency than you had when you were working there or are there any hesitations now looking back in
your decision?
DR. HAVERS: There's no hesitation in looking back. I mean, I am still saddened and angry that I felt like I had to leave my job because I really
loved working at CDC. I loved my colleagues and we did really, really important work, but it had gotten to the point where, in my particular
role, I didn't feel like I could do my job effectively because I thought it -- the evidence that we're putting out for science-based vaccine policy was
going to be ignored, and that is indeed what has happened over the next two months.
I was grateful to people like Dr. Jernigan and Dr. Daskalakis for hanging in in senior leadership positions and helping to buffer that on the
administration, and I'm very sad to hear that they have left. But I think they probably came to a similar point than I did a couple of months ago.
I mean, I hope people listen because it is a really -- where public health is in crisis, American lives are in danger by this assault of RFK Jr. and
this administration on vaccine policy, on public health, and on CDC.
GOLODRYGA: By these public servants, I would imagine apolitical medical experts that have been in this field for over a number of various
administrations and have covered, as we noted, numerous crises in the past, in addition to your resignation, I mean, what kind of message should that
send to the American public? Just from reading their past works, the fact that they're no longer working at the CDC sounds very alarming to me. Is
that really the case? I mean, who's left there to man the system?
DR. HAVERS: I mean, it's -- the loss of expertise in the -- in this -- the last seven months since this administration -- or eight months since this
administration began, has been incredible to see.
[13:10:00]
I think generally speaking, public health and CDC was apolitical, like science is not partisan. The COVID vaccines were rolled out under the Trump
administration in Operation Warp Speed, and I think many of you, that is one of the great triumphs of Trump's administration.
CDC did not politicize vaccines, RFK Jr. and this current administration has, and they did not politicize CDC. But I think by having the leadership
in this administration be the ones attacking public health officials, attacking federal government experts and driving out scientific experts is
a huge loss for the American public. And I think it is very concerning. I mean, I also think that many people are concerned now that these senior
leaders are gone, including Dr. Monarez. We were wondering -- or people are wondering who's going to be put in their place?
And I think, you know, we've seen in other agency's Environmental Protection Agency, the FDA, other places where they've had other political
appointees, you know, it -- the mission of the agency is going to continue to be compromised and it will be compromised more because of the departure
of these senior leaders.
GOLODRYGA: We should note that Secretary Kennedy was on Fox and Friends this morning, and here's what he said in response. He said, I cannot
comment on personnel issues, but the agency is in trouble. We need to fix it. We are fixing it. And it may be that some people should not be working
there anymore. So, we need to look at the priorities of the agency. It's really a deeply, deeply embedded, I would say, malaise at the agency. And
we need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on President Trump's broad ambitions.
He also went on to talk about some of the mistakes and failures made during the COVID pandemic here and some of the policy decisions and choices by the
Biden administration and Trump administration at the time. Now, mind you, you know, we can debate whether schools should have been opened sooner, the
masks, the mandated masking.
But that aside, these statements from the health -- the HHS secretary don't suggest that he's panicked now by these resignations. It sounds like he's
doubling down in saying that this needed to be done. What is your response?
DR. HAVERS: I mean, I would agree with him that the agency is in trouble, but he's the one that is causing the problems. I think that he is not
troubled by the departure of these leaders because they were the ones that were standing up for science and standing up for public health, that that
was getting in the way of his anti-vaccine, anti-science agenda.
So, I will disagree -- I mean, I agree with RFK Jr. that the agency is in trouble, but he needs to take responsibility for this. I think that he
spread misinformation about the COVID vaccines that -- and continues to do so, and about vaccines in general, that is directly going to cause an
increase in vaccine preventable deaths as vaccine rates go down.
And again, COVID vaccine misinformation was one of the motivations for the shooter that opened fire on the CDC and put the lives of federal employees,
federal -- you know, career scientists doing their job in danger and led to the death of a police officer. So, the agency is in trouble, but he's the
one in large part causing the trouble with the agency.
GOLODRYGA: Dr. Monarez says that it is only the president of the United States who can fire her directly. I don't think we've heard from the
President quite yet. I believe it was a White House staffer that had sent her -- or that told her that she was out of a job at the time and issued
that statement. But here was President Trump when he held a cabinet meeting earlier this week when touting what was rightfully a real accomplishment
for him in his first term, and that was Operation Warp Speed, getting these vaccines to the public as quickly in an unprecedented nature as they did.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Operation Warp Speed, people say is one of the greatest achievements ever in politics or in the military because it
was almost a military procedure. But everybody, including Putin said that Operation Warp Speed, what you did with that, nobody can believe it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I don't know why he used Putin as the other example, as if he's some sort of medical expert. But still, I mean, it was right for the
president to tout that accomplishment. And yet, we've seen such a complete change in his views and his administration's views and policies toward
vaccines. What do you think explains that?
DR. HAVERS: That's very hard to say. I mean, I think that RFK Jr. has -- had a very strong following outside prior to this administration, and I
think that maybe Trump saw it as an opportunity to get another set of supporters into his administration. But it is -- you're -- I mean, you're
correct, like this is -- RFK Jr. is directly attacking one of the biggest achievements of the first Trump administration by going after COVID-19
vaccines.
[13:15:00]
But I think that there's going to be ongoing damage to America's health. We are not making America healthy again by spreading misinformation about
vaccines. We've had in recent months, the largest numbers of measles cases in the United States in decades. Two children have died of measles, which
we just don't need to like -- were -- was completely unnecessary. And a lot of that is in part by the messaging by RFK Jr. and others that -- and the
spread of misinformation about vaccines.
Prior to this administration, he was doing that outside the government, but now he is pulling the levers of government power and destroying the
institutions that didn't do gold standard evidence-based science and is upending the processes to make sure that, you know, for example, vaccine
policy was transparent and evidence-based and trusted. And I think -- I mean, this is going to be a huge challenge for Americans going forward.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And no doubt you can make the argument that he wields the most power out of all of his cabinet and all of his secretaries there in
his administration given the deference that he has towards him. And, you know, rightfully so, given the role he played in getting President Trump
elected too, not only from the MAGA base, but obviously he had a huge following as well and continues to bring those supporters into the Trump
base.
That having been said there, there has long been a link that he has tried to make, and I'm talking about Kennedy, between vaccines and autism.
There's no science that suggests that there is a link between the two, that has been completely debunked. No evidence as well. And yet, he continues to
make this link. And here's what he had to say about a new plan now and direction in terms of autism policy that we can expect. He said this during
the cabinet meeting as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: Oh, we will have announcements as promised in September. We're finding
interventions, certain interventions now that are clearly almost certainly causing autism. And we're going to be able to address those in September.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Do you have a sense of what those announcements will be and how concerned are you that he will try to draw a link between some of these
revelations and whatever findings they have and vaccines?
DR. HAVERS: Well, I don't think there'll be revelations. I think there'll be a manipulation of bad data and bad science. I think we are -- I mean, I
am very concerned that he's going to say what he's been saying for decades, that vaccines cause autism, which, as you mentioned, like completely
debunked. I do think it's incredibly dangerous that the person that is the Health and Human Services secretary for the United States now has a
megaphone for spreading this misinformation. I think that this also has the potential to impact access to vaccines and insurance coverage for vaccines
and even the availability of certain vaccines going forward.
I think -- so, I mean, he put someone who is a well-known anti-vaccine skeptic in charge of this report. He is not involving experts from the CDC
centers that study autism and birth defects. And like there's study -- there's experts at CDC that study this, that are in charge of longitudinal
government funded studies looking at causes of autism, they, I don't believe, are involved in these studies in this report. And I think the
people that he did put in charge of this report is a strong indication like the people that he put on the ACIP committee, that he is putting people
with preconceived notions who will come up with junk evidence to support the conclusions they want to -- they have decided in advance are true.
And that's not the way CDC does science. That's not the way the government has historically has done science. And it is going to be a further platform
for spreading misinformation.
GOLODRYGA: We're already seeing changes too with restricting some of the guidelines for vaccines, the COVID vaccine too, making it a smaller
opportunity window for those who can take the vaccine now. I believe the new guidelines that just came out this week are only apply to those who are
immunocompromised or elderly.
And that just raises the question of what Americans and what their doctors should be talking about. The onus now and the pressure among doctors when
they're asked these questions by patients and they don't necessarily know whether they should be following CDC guidelines. I mean, what position does
that put physicians in?
DR. HAVERS: That is a great question. It is a huge problem. I mean, I'm a practicing physician and I know that when I was giving -- you know, talking
to patients that I had in front of me about what vaccines they should do, I just knew I could go to the CDC website, look up their age group or their
underlying medical conditions and know what they were due for.
[13:20:00]
The guidelines that -- the CDC immunization schedule had the buy-in from all of the professional societies previously, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Pharmacy Association, because of the process that had been in place through the ACIP
process and the advisory committee, it was very transparent. There was a lot of consensus. There was a lot of work put into making that the best
schedule that people agreed on.
But now, with the upending of -- the firing of the advisory committee, putting in people with a political anti-vaccine agenda onto the Vaccine
Policy Committee, I think it is going to be very disturbing to see what they do to the vaccine schedule going forward.
And it does make it a lot harder. I mean, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out with their own COVID vaccine recommendations for
children, which actually, to be honest, was going to be likely what ACIP would've voted on had that -- the committee not been fired in the planned
vote, been allowed to take place in June.
So, now, it is confusing for clinicians, it's confusing for patients, and it's access to COVID vaccines is going to be restricted for people who may
want them in certain groups like, you know, pregnant women who want to get the COVID vaccine to protect themselves and their infants are having
difficulty accessing it because pharmacists are no longer comfortable prescribing it because it is not officially on the CDC schedule.
There's a lot of confusion because of the announcement yesterday was about FDA licensure for vaccines, and then there will be a vote on COVID vaccines
by ACIP next month. And so, there's a lot of confusion, there's conflicting recommendations, and it's hugely problematic for both providers and their
patients.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And I would imagine just for the American public in general this is really a dangerous time when you don't know whether one can
trust the guidance that we're getting now from the government, whether vaccines that we currently we're just so used to getting every year,
whoever wanted one could get one, that is no longer the case. And that with it carries ramifications, no doubt. Fiona Havers, thank you so much for
taking the time. We really appreciate it.
DR. HAVERS: Well, thank you very much for having me on. I appreciate it.
GOLODRYGA: And still coming up for us after the break, a massive Russian attack and Kyiv has injured dozens and killed at least four children. We
have the latest after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Welcome back. Ukraine is reeling after yet another night of Russian bombardment, the second biggest air assault on Kyiv since the start
of the war. At least 19 people have been killed, including four children with rescuers scrambling to find those trapped under the rubble.
These strikes have become all too common in the war-torn nation. Here's what Kyiv's mayor, Vitali Klitschko, had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VITALI KLITSCHKO, KYIV MAYOR: This attack is one of the example of Russian. Russian country is terrorist country. Destroyed civilians, killed
civilians, destroyed peaceful city, capital of Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, this comes only two weeks after President Trump hosted face-to-face meetings with Russian and Ukrainian leaders in hopes of
securing peace talks. But still, no sign of that happening. In a post on X, President Zelenskyy described last night's attacks as, quote, "a horrific
and deliberate killing of civilians," writing, Russia chooses ballistics instead of ending the war.
[13:25:00]
E.U. leaders have also condemned Moscow with E.U. chief Ursula von der Leyen stating that Putin, quote, "must come to the negotiating table." So,
what's the holdup and does the Kremlin really want a path out of this war? CNN's Fred Pleitgen reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Russian State TV pushing Moscow's view that when it comes to finding ways
to end the fighting in Ukraine, America's European allies are against the U.S. and Russia.
Trump clearly said all that is happening is a European conflict, this analyst says, but they don't want it to be their conflict. They want it to
be an American conflict.
The Kremlin remaining tough, not offering a timeline for a possible face- to-face meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and also giving a big niet to the idea of
European NATO states troops keeping the peace in Ukraine.
From the very start, it was the advancement of NATO military infrastructure and the infiltration of this military infrastructure into Ukraine that we
can say were among the root causes of the conflict situation that arose, the Kremlin spokesman says. Therefore, we have a negative attitude towards
these discussions.
While President Trump threatened Russia with tough sanctions and tariffs if there's no fast progress towards peace talks --
TRUMP: It will not be a World War, but it'll be an economic war.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): The Kremlin relaxed. Vladimir Putin saying this weekend he believes us Russia relations could be fully back on track soon.
I am certain that the leadership qualities of the current president, President Trump, are a good guarantee that relations will be restored,
Putin said, and I hope that the pace of our joint work on these grounds will continue.
But Russia is taking a beating as well. The Ukrainian drone hitting this building in Russia, southwest overnight, causing a major fire. And
authorities putting up anti-drone nets around schools and nurseries in the Belgorod region, close to the border with Ukraine.
Still, the Russians say they're ready for a protracted conflict if President Trump's peace initiative fails. Moscow's defense ministry
releasing this video of recruits signing up to participate in what the Kremlin calls its special military operation.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN Moscow.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, now, after failing to restrain Iran's nuclear program diplomatically, Germany, France, and the U.K. have begun the process to
reimpose U.N. sanctions on the country. Those so-called snapback sanctions take 30 days to activate, and the hope is that in order to stop them,
Tehran will allow international inspections and negotiations. But so far, Iran has only threatened harsh consequences, with one official saying
Tehran is considering withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Now, this all comes in the wake of Israel and Iran's 12-day war in June, which appeared to expose the regime's military vulnerability. It also may
have sped up their race for a bomb. Former State Department adviser, Suzanne Maloney and Johns Hopkins Middle East scholar Narges Bajoghli joins
me now to break it all down. Welcome both of you.
Suzanne, let's start with you because the E3, as they're referred to, France, Germany, and the U.K., have said that they will in fact trigger
these snapback sanctions, but that there is a 30-day window in which Iran will have the opportunity before the sanctions go into effect to resume
negotiations. Given that window, what is the likelihood in your view that Iran will view this as a reason to come back to negotiating table in
earnest?
SUZANNE MALONEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN POLICY, THE BROOKING INSTITUTION: Well, I think that the Iranians appreciate that
they're going to have to engage with both the Europeans and with the Trump administration to find a way out of the trap that they're currently in. And
this was really the last chance for the snapback mechanism to be invoked. It does provide a 30-day window for some kind of a dialogue, and I think
the European powers have been very clear that what they want to see over the course of those 30 days is a meaningful effort by the Iranians to
engage directly with the United States, to reinstitute full-fledged cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure
inspections and verification of the status of the various elements of Iran's nuclear program.
And that those are really necessary to conditions to try to devise some kind of a diplomatic bargain that could be the follow on to the 2015
nuclear deal that in fact included this very interesting and I think creative mechanism which would reimpose U.N. sanctions if in fact there is
not full-fledged agreement among the P5 that Iran is compliant with its obligations under that deal, which we know that it is not.
[13:30:00]
GOLODRYGA: And in addition to resuming and wanting Iran to resume negotiations, as you noted, the Europeans would also like for U.N.
inspectors to be given full access to nuclear sites and any of the 60 percent or highly enriched uranium that may have survived the attacks by
both Israel and the United States. Do you think given the position that Iran is in right now that they will green light this?
MALONEY: I think it's going to be a very tough set of negotiations, but we can see that the Iranians are beginning to inch back towards some
cooperation with the IAEA. In recent days, they've announced that there would be some permission to inspect the Boucher nuclear plant. I think
that's a far cry from what is necessary to get a full-fledged understanding of what Iran has been able to sustain in the aftermath of the U.S. and
Israeli strikes in June, and that's absolutely necessary if the world is going to be confident that Iran is not trying to dash toward nuclear
weapons capability, which is the great fear that I think many of us now have.
GOLODRYGA: Narges, how are ordinary Iranians processing this potential moment of going back to those really draconian sanctions that had been
lifted after 2015 now to know that strikes that they'd seen over the last few months coupled with additional sanctions mean that their lives will
only get worse in a sense? Just talk about what you're hearing from ordinary Iranians.
NARGES BAJOGHLI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EAST STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: Sure. So, you know, Iranians have been living under very harsh
sanctions for many, many years now. There is the fear that the U.N. snapback sanctions will come back on. There is also the knowledge that this
war with Israel has -- does not actually have a real end date. And so, the specter of war continues to hover over many people's lives.
And at the same time, Iranians recognized that their government was in negotiations with the United States over the nuclear file when Israel
attacked back in June. So, what all of this means is that there's very intense debate happening inside of Iran right now about the IAEA, the U.N.
snapback sanctions, and the position and role that the that the government should take vis-a-vis all of this.
GOLODRYGA: And, Suzanne, of course, Iran has threatened that with these snapback elections that they would indeed retaliate and perhaps leave the
non-proliferation treaty. What would a retaliation look like and what is the significance of officially leaving that treaty if they do so?
MALONEY: There is chatter from Iranian officials that they might contemplate leaving the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which of course
obligates them not to pursue nuclear weapons. That's a treaty that stood in place for more than half century. It was actually agreed to by the
monarchy, and the Islamic Republic has always insisted that it would abide by those parameters, although it has not always done so strictly to the
letter.
I think a departure would be a signal to the world that Iran was trying to move very quickly to nuclear weapons capability. I think it would create a
sense of urgency, not just within the west, but also in those capitals where Iran has had important strategic relations, including Moscow and
Beijing, because there's really no one in the world who wants to see Iran with a nuclear weapons capability.
I think at this point it's largely bluffing. The departure from the NPT would not really serve Iranian interests, but it would create a sense of
urgency on the part of the west. And so, we're seeing right now a game of chicken between the two sides. I think that it is likely that we will see
some progress, but it's going to be a very tough set of negotiations.
I would just reinforce that, you know, with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran Supreme leader at that time said he did the deal in order to get the
sanctions lifted. So, while sanctions have a very negative impact on ordinary people who are in no way complicit with their government's
decisions, sanctions have proven to be an effective tool to persuade the Iranian leadership that it needs to compromise.
GOLODRYGA: Narges, you've written, and this is after -- immediately after those strikes back in June, quote -- this is in a piece that you wrote at
the time, "Even Iranians who once dismissed official slogans from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei began repeating them. The strikes didn't just spark a
patriotic fervor, they ignited something more volatile, a widespread sense that foreign powers had crossed a line even among some of the most vocal
critics of the regime. The anger turned not inward but outward."
Has any of that sentiment changed over the last few weeks in months? I mean, one could imagine a rally around the flag in the hours and days
following the strikes, but now it's been two months later.
BAJOGHLI: Yes. So, there continues to be, again, heated debate within Iran. People continue to be very mad at their ruling establishments. There
is a current drought in the country. There are questions and problems over electricity usage and the amount of hours that people have electricity. So,
you know, things have not necessarily calmed down in any sense of the word, and people continue to be angry.
[13:35:00]
But again, there is a difference between anger at your government for mismanagement and rampant mismanagement for many decades and then, strikes
that come from outside that kill people indiscriminately. And so, there is a difference here about not just rallying around the flag, but rallying
around the notion of securing the homeland against outside threat, especially from a military like Israel's and given what Israel has been
doing across the region over the past two years. So, there -- this is something that is being hotly contested and debated and also felt in Iran.
GOLODRYGA: Narges, what is known right now by the actual stability of leadership there?
BAJOGHLI: Can you repeat your question? I didn't hear the whole thing.
GOLODRYGA: What is known now to you about the stability of leadership within Iran right now?
BAJOGHLI: So, the strikes by Israel were very bold in attempting to take down the leadership of the Islamic Republic and succeeded in taking and
assassinating many of the high political and especially military leaders within the country. But yet, they did not lead to the regime change that
seemed to have been the main goal of the Israelis at the time.
The Iranian establishment and the institutions that govern Iran have been in place for many decades and the institutions in particular for even much
longer than the revolution of '79. So, Iran has the capability to reinforce those political leaders or military leaders that are taken out. It's going
to take a lot more than just airstrikes from above to change the leadership within Iran.
And as we saw, it seems like the Israeli leadership was hoping that Iranians inside Iran would protest and come out and sort of lead to a
change of regime, both internally while those strikes were happening and to destabilize the state even further. We did not see that happening at that
time.
It remains to be seen whether if this becomes much longer as a slow war of attrition over time, whether that will take place or not. But again, I
think it's important to note that because of the way that Israel has been acting across the region, the thought that Iranians would come out while
Israel is bombing Iran in order to bring down their own government is at least, for now, seems to be quite farfetched.
GOLODRYGA: Ys. because we know in the days following the attacks it was almost every day that we saw messages that the Prime Minister Netanyahu was
sending directly to the Iranian people, telling them that, you know, his war is not with them. This is their time to speak out. And I think those
have quieted down for now at least.
Suzanne, given that it's been two months since those strikes. So, President Trump continues to say that they were a complete success, total
obliteration, I think is the phrase that he used. How much do we know about how far back these strikes set Iran's nuclear program? What do we know and
what have we learned about the enriched stockpile where it possibly is right now?
MALONEY: Well, we don't still have, at least in the open source, full battle damage assessment, but I think that there is a consensus that Iran
does retain some significant stockpile of more highly enriched uranium, perhaps as much as enough to fuel more than nine or 10 bombs. And that they
do actually have a number of advanced centrifuges which had not been installed, whose whereabouts is not known, and which may be possibly able
to be part of a reconstitution of an advanced enrichment program. That's still some ways away from an actual nuclear weapons capability to be clear.
But I think it's also quite clear that the program was not obliterated, that the problem remains, that we don't have a clear solution to the
problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, that we are probably unlikely to be able to resolve that through military action, and that the diplomacy that
we hope will take place over the next 30 days is going to be absolutely critical, as well as the longer-term process of some kind of political
change within Iran, which I think is inevitable over the long-term.
GOLODRYGA: And in your piece, Suzanne, you argued that Iran no longer fears isolation as much because of the ties it not only has with Russia,
but also with China. And it is notable that the Europeans are hoping that this process plays out within a 30-day window, wherever it ends in lands,
because in October, I believe it is Russia that is resuming the presidency at the U.N. Security Council. Just talk about the relationship that we've
seen evolve, not just with Russia, but China as well.
[13:40:00]
MALONEY: Well, Iran has developed really valuable strategic partnerships with the Russians, largely through the cooperation that they engaged in the
Civil War in Syria, and preserving the Bashar Assad regime there until last December. They also have a very important economic relationship with China,
which has sustained the Iranian economy, especially since the reposition of maximum pressure U.S. sanctions when the first Donald Trump presidency
opted to leave the nuclear deal in 2018.
But I think the Iranians also have come to recognize, particularly in the aftermath of the June war, that they can't count on those allies for truly
strategic assistance. It does seem as though the Russians are prepared to try to fend off some kind of a snapback situation, which is why there was
time pressure for the Europeans to act before the Russians assumed the presidency of the Security Council.
But ultimately, what they saw in June was that neither the Chinese nor the Russians are going to ride to their rescue. And I think that this makes an
Iran a nuclear ambition even stronger because they need some kind of a deterrent against future intervention by Israel, the United States, or
other powers.
GOLODRYGA: All right. We'll continue to follow this closely. Suzanne Maloney, Narges Bajoghli, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
And coming up for us after the break, as cartel violence scare scars Mexico, could a U.S. intervention help or hurt? We discuss, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: One of the most powerful cartel bosses in history was brought to justice this week. Ismael El Mayo Zambada Garcia pled guilty to drug
smuggling in New York. After years leading the infamous Sinaloa cartel, El Mayo was lured to the U.S. in an extraordinary double cross by the son of
fellow kingpin El Chapo.
But his arrest and trial aren't bringing peace to Mexico. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Homicides are four -- are up 400 percent since El
Mayo's capture last year. The Trump administration is now mulling possible military action against cartels on foreign soil, which could include
Mexico, something that Mexican President, Claudia Sheinbaum, says will not happen in her country.
There are a lot of moving parts to cover here. So, let's get the facts with David Mora, a senior analyst from Mexico at the International Crisis Group.
Welcome to the program, David, from Mexico City. So, we know El Mayo has now pled guilty. He's facing life behind bars without parole and agreed to
forfeit $15 billion. Just talk about the significance of such a high- profile arrest and how central he really was to Mexican organized crime.
DAVID MORA, SENIOR ANALYST FOR MEXICO, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Thank you. Thank you, Bianna. I mean, this is a paramount move in the criminal --
in the organized crime world in Mexico. El Mayo Zambada was the leader of the -- probably the most powerful faction of the Sinaloa cartel. And the
fallout that we've seen in the state, across the state, under the region in Mexico after he was captured, allegedly kidnapped and brought over to the
U.S. speaks to how much betray -- how much betrayed the faction La Mayiza fills, but also to the extent to it to which they're willing to go to gain
control over the cartel's operations, not only in the state, but of course throughout the country, and we're talking about a business organization
that has presence over 50 countries. So, to take over this business empire.
[13:45:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes. I mean, just talk about the far reach that the Sinaloa cartel has. The New York Times reports that a record of 316 million people
used illicit drugs in 2023 with demand rising also in Asia and Africa.
MORA: Right, right. The Sinaloa cartel has been pushing, has been out of the panorama of the different cartels that operate in Mexico. It's the
Sinaloa cartel, the one that came first in the fentanyl industry, especially the Chapitos, the sons of the El Chapo Guzman who were the ones
who pushed for the cartel to take steps into the fentanyl industry several years ago.
And it's currently the cartel that is behind most of the drugs that are being -- of the fentanyl that is being trafficked into the U.S. but also a
lot of the drugs that are being shipped abroad, for instance, as you said, to Europe and to Africa. Those drugs tend to be more like cocaine and
marijuana. While the business in the U.S. has certainly been dominated by the fentanyl.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, after El Mayo's arrest, we saw violence not only in his hometown but also throughout multiple states and Mexico only spread. We
talked about a 400 percent increase in crime there. How is this affecting average Mexicans?
MORA: Right. Look, I recently visited Sinaloa, actually I was there for the anniversary of the date when he was allegedly kidnapped and brought
over to the United States. And what I saw is definitely -- the human toll that that move left is really impressive. We're talking about thousands of
people who have been killed, thousands of people who have been disappeared in the state. because the two factions, again, are fighting each other to
control the cartel.
And I think this is something that we need to remember when we talk about what sort of like moves can come next from the Trump administration and
the, a lot of the saber-rattling and the talking about a possibility of unilateral military intervention in Mexico. Because what we're seeing here
is yet more evidence that beheading the cartels, what is called the kingpin strategy, removing the heads of the cartels, not only brings a significant
human toll to Mexico, Mexico's putting the dead, but also really has little or a very limited impact in the actual production and trafficking of drugs.
So, I think this is -- again, to repeat, this is important to keep in mind when we talk about if the U.S. should or not move ahead with any sort of
military action in the country.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, Amnesty International now cites 30 disappearances a day in Mexico, and according to the government, more than 125,000 people are
missing. Why is impunity there so entrenched? I mean, you talk about the role of the United States here, what about the role of the Mexican
government and their response or complicity at times?
MORA: There's -- absolutely, absolutely. There's something -- we cannot explain what is going on in Mexico without talking about decades of
political parties and politicians at all levels from the most immediate municipal level to a state level and country level who have been complicit
with different organized crime groups, what we call criminal governance. And I think this is actually an area of opportunity that President
Sheinbaum can act, can develop policies to tackle, you know, like the preying of both the political forces and the criminal forces in certain
parts of the state.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen actual steps taken by her administration towards that direction. And I'm talking about two immediate cases, for
instance, in which, the Baja California governor, her U.S. visa was revoked for alleged ties to the oil theft and oil smuggling on the border. But
also, a more recent scandal than in the southern State of Tabasco, in which a very powerful Morena, Morena is a ruling party, a very powerful Morena
figure, when he was governor, he hired his security secretary who was running both the security apparatus of the state while he was running his
own private gang committing a long list of different crimes.
So, I think -- and she didn't actually do anything with either case. So, unfortunately, as you said, some very paramount, very important area of
opportunity in which Mexico could take certain steps to at least curb, you know, the mix in between criminals and politicians. But again,
unfortunately, we haven't seen her taking those steps.
[13:50:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, we know the past cartel trials really have exposed ties between politicians and cartels. The last one was when El Chapo was brought
to trial. He revealed that he paid $100 million worth of bribes, specifically implicating the former president at the time, Pena Nieto. And
when Sheinbaum was asked whether she was worried about whether El Mayo's trial will bring out any revelation similar to this, she seemed as if she
wasn't and played very coolly when asked by a journalist. Let's play that sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Is there concern in your government about what El Mayo might declare?
CLAUDIA SHEINBAUM, MEXICAN PRESIDENT (through translator): No. Whatever he's going to declare, and if the U.S. attorney general offices puts that
forward, anything that has to do with Mexico has to go through evidence and Mexico's attorney general.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of her response there? Does she have reason to worry?
MORA: Well, I mean, she's been in power for less than a year. So, in that regard, her government is fairly new, right?
GOLODRYGA: What about the party?
MORA: And El Mayo has been doing -- right. Well, yes. Morena has been in power not only at the national level, but in the local level for longer.
But what I was going to say is that El Mayo has been doing business for over four decades. So, I think if the question would have been framed as,
are you concerned about like the different, like the political class, and not only like people about her immediate circle or her specific -- you
know, specific names around the most immediate circle in her government.
But if the question would've been asked about like the political class in Mexico, I think the answer could have been different because, certainly,
and we've seen this in the past, not only Garcia Luna, who was tried and he's behind bars, he used to head Mexican national police forces and he
took bribes from the Sinaloa cartel and he was basically on the payroll of the Sinaloa cartel, right?
So, I do think the political class in Mexico as a larger no species, they might -- they should be worried because there's generally a lot of ties
between that class and this specific, Sinaloa cartel, but other criminal outfits as well.
GOLODRYGA: And the finger pointing, of course, goes both ways, both north of the border and south. Mexico has long said that the demand for drugs
coming from the states is only helping the industry boom. And Mexico also saying that the drug -- the gun industry as well. 70 percent Mexico is
saying of gun -- cartel guns come from the United States. The Supreme Court just blocked its lawsuit against gun makers. So, how much have U.S. guns
really played in terms of a role in Mexican violence and gang violence?
MORA: I mean, it's a decisive factor. The bloodshed that we've seen in Mexico for the past 20 years since the war on drugs was officially
initiated. It's been driven by guns and different weapons brought over from the state. As the drugs flow north, the guns and the proceeds of those
drugs come south. And I think those are the two points, the weapons point that Sheinbaum has been trying to put on the bilateral agenda with Trump.
But unfortunately, that's being ignored by the Trump administration. We've only seen him guarding the different Justice Department agencies in charge
of tracking and, you know, following up with this problem. So, the few steps that we've seen in the U.S. have been actually going backwards. And I
think that's a very fair point too for Sheinbaum to rise. I mean, crime in Mexico is certainly driven by American guns.
The majority of people who are captured in Mexico, and we're talking about with -- under the -- President Sheinbaum administration, which we're
talking about over 30,000, people who have been detained. A lot of them have been detained for carrying weapons that are of exclusive use of the
army or police forces. And a lot of those weapons, if you trace them, they go back to the U.S.
And I think that the patterns have been already plotted. It's very clear how weapons are getting into the U.S. It's more like political willingness
on the side of the U.S. to act against it.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we know our fair share of gun violence here in the United States as well, and we cover mass shootings, as we did just yesterday at a
Catholic school all too often. So, yes, that is, as we call, a uniquely American problem in crisis. David Mora, thank you so much for joining the
program. Really good to hear your perspective. Appreciate it.
MORA: Thank you, Bianna.
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, from us, the World's Solar Challenge sped to a finish today in Australia. The competition is a bit of a cross between Mad
Max and Greta Thunberg, where drivers race across the length of Oz from Darwin to Adelaide with cars powered only by solar energy. The Dutch team,
Brunel, came in first this year, completing the race in just 35 hours. It's a literal rise from the ashes for them after their 2019 entry burst into
flames not far from the finish line. This marks the eighth time they won the championship. So, the sun really has been smiling on them. A well-
deserved victory celebration with some champagne.
All right. That does it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
