Why “Kill The Bad Guys” Never Works - with MS NOW’s Ayman Mohyeldin

[0:00] The American military actually spent a lot of time going around Saddam Hussein's old hometown [0:05] and putting up wanted dead or alive posters in Iraq. And it says, wanted dead or alive, [0:14] $25 million reward. Call us with any information that can lead to his arrest. [0:21] And then there's a tip line right there. You can email them. [0:23] Yeah. Tips at O-R-H-A dot CENTCOM dot mail. Got it. So people in Tikrit who barely had any food or water [0:33] electricity were encouraged to open up their Yahoo email account and email and drop a tip to CENTCOM. [0:40] Exactly. Look, a lot of news anchors aren't real journalists. They're just actors who play [0:45] journalists on TV. Eamon Mohedin is not one of those anchors. He has spent years working as a war [0:51] reporter literally on the ground. He's basically the Forrest Gump of recent Middle Eastern history, [0:58] popping up in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Egypt, and Ukraine. And in more recent years, he has been [1:04] bringing that experience from the field to the studio at MSNOW with a perspective that sees people [1:09] in the Middle East as, you know, actual human beings and not just foreign policy issues. So I sat down [1:15] with Eamon to talk about how America and American media tries to make sense of the Middle East. We [1:20] really get into the just kill the bad guys narrative and why it keeps failing. The idea [1:25] that you're just going to kill your way through a leadership and expect that to change the fundamental [1:29] problems of any society has proven time and time again has not worked. Why coverage of the Israeli [1:34] Palestinian conflict has often been lopsided and not great. I think there are so many layers to [1:40] covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict that make it difficult for American journalists. And empathy [1:45] and sympathy are probably two of them. And we look back at when the U.S. media lost its freaking [1:51] mind between 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq, especially New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. [1:56] Well, suck on this. Why are you laughing? Hey, if you think that's an offensive metaphor for a [2:03] three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, wait until you see what Thomas does with the bubble. Conspiracy theories [2:18] are flying about the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. An overwhelming amount of [2:23] Americans online believe that the shooting was staged, fabricated to increase President Trump's [2:27] approval ratings. Now, I read about this response on Ground News, which is today's sponsor. Ground [2:32] News is an independent news platform that shows a breakdown of publications reporting on a story, [2:36] including which way each publisher tends to lean politically. It's not about eliminating bias [2:41] completely, but it makes you aware of the potential biases of different publications so you can consider [2:45] them as you analyze an event or an issue. In one of the articles, Donald Trump maintained that the [2:49] shooting was real and the Epstein files were, quote, a Democrat hoax and are a criminal conspiracy [2:54] designed to damage him. Right. This is one of the first times when I did not pick up on many [3:00] differences in a story that could be attributed to political leanings. The right-leaning publications [3:05] are saying the same thing as the left. Shit is weird. Let's cut through the noise together. Go to [3:10] groundnews.com slash huson to subscribe and get the 40% off Unlimited Access Vantage plan, which breaks [3:15] down to just five bucks a month with my discount. That's groundnews.com slash huson. Just to kick [3:20] things off, I want to say thank you for your service. You have been doing incredible, important [3:26] work as a journalist for over 25 years now, and I just want to personally thank you for that. [3:30] My pleasure. But I also want to thank you for some of your best work, which came out recently, [3:34] and I'm talking about your full frontal GQ spread. Let's take a look. Amen. Tom Brokaw could never. [3:41] Listen, the good thing I was going to tell you is very few people noticed that because my wife was [3:47] standing next to me, and I think most of the attention was- Yeah, all eyes were on her. All eyes [3:51] were on her. Obviously. Amen. Another humble brag. He's married to a supermodel. He's over six feet [3:57] tall. He's married to a supermodel. Life is good. L-I-G. Alhamdulillah. There we go. That's what we say [4:03] in Islam. In interviews I've heard, is it true that you started your career as a journalist [4:08] the moment Bush was inaugurated in January 2000? Is this true? Literally, the first day I walked [4:15] into a newsroom as a desk assistant was George Bush's inauguration in 2001. January 20th, 2001. [4:21] What was the newsroom like for you? Well, interestingly enough, the summer before 9-11 was a very, [4:31] what I would call, journalistically boring summer, and I wasn't sure that I actually wanted to stay [4:35] in journalism. It was, you know, shock attacks off of the coast of Florida and Carolina. They were not [4:41] big international stories. I had this kind of like idea of wanting to be an international [4:45] correspondent, and I wasn't sure how I was going to get there. Okay. So at some point I was kind of [4:48] like not really sure that journalism was for me, even though I've always wanted to be a journalist, [4:52] but that kind of gave me a moment of pause. And then unfortunately 9-11 happened, and the newsroom [4:56] was not very diverse. In fact, one of the main reasons that I was able to kind of leapfrog some of my [5:02] peers at the time was because I was the only one who spoke Arabic in the newsroom. And, you know, [5:07] after 9-11, we launched a massive investigation into the 9-11 hijackers and trying to understand [5:13] what happened, what was the intelligence saying. And so I was one of the few people in the entire [5:17] news organization, let alone in the newsroom, who spoke Arabic and was kind of plucked off of being a [5:23] desk assistant, which is an entry-level job, and put into the investigative unit to start working [5:28] on these like very complex, deep stories into 9-11. And in fact, when the war started in [5:34] Afghanistan, that's how I got sent overseas on my first assignment and started becoming a bit of a [5:40] field producer. 9-11 happens, I'm in high school. The war on terror happens as I'm in high school, [5:46] entering college, even into post-college. I'm consuming the news media. So me, my family, [5:52] this is pre-WhatsApp, we're consuming the news media. I want to play two clips for you [5:55] of the things that we were consuming at that time. The first is from Thomas Friedman a few [5:59] months after the Iraq invasion in 2003, explaining why the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Let's take [6:05] a look. We needed to go over there, basically, and take out a very big stick right in the heart of [6:14] that world and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it, because part of that bubble [6:20] said, we've got you. This bubble is actually going to level the balance of power between us and you [6:26] because we don't care about life. We're ready to sacrifice and all you care about are your stock [6:31] options and your Hummers. And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house [6:38] from Basra to Baghdad and basically saying, which part of this sentence don't you understand? [6:48] You don't think, you know, we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, [6:53] we're just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this. [6:57] Are you laughing? Hey, he's on Charlie Rose and he thinks he's cooking. What are you laughing at? [7:12] I mean, I don't even know where to begin with that. [7:15] Start. [7:17] Look, it's a completely arrogant worldview. It's an oversimplification of what was happening and [7:25] an understanding of the region. It's a language that is deeply embedded in violence and the psychology [7:32] of violence and the belief that only violence is the way to communicate with other people. And it's [7:39] the language of dominance, which is regardless of what we are about to do to you, you have to accept [7:45] what it is that we are here to do to you. As he just said, we are coming to you from Basra to [7:51] Baghdad and you're going to have to suck on this because we're about to light it up for you. [7:57] And this notion that we won't protect ourselves by destroying your society is the framework in [8:04] which he's kind of like presenting this argument. He's like, we are prepared to send our boys and [8:10] girls to die to protect this, you know, worldview that we have, this idea that we have. And I think [8:16] it's just a grotesque use of language and oversimplification of what has actually been [8:22] happening in the Middle East. [8:22] I'm really glad you're saying that because look, is it offensive that he's co-signing a ward that we [8:26] didn't have to be a part of? Sure. But I am more offended at his abuse of the English language. [8:33] Let's just take a quick look at this. Okay. This is a quote of what he was saying on Charlie Rose. [8:37] We needed to go over there basically and take out a very big stick. Okay. So that's the first [8:42] metaphor. Okay. Right in the heart of that world. Second metaphor. In burst that bubble. Third [8:48] metaphor. Same sentence. Now it's getting stranger. Okay. Because part of that bubble said, [8:54] so now the bubble has two parts. Eamon, are you following this? The bubble has two. Apparently [8:57] these bubbles can split. Okay. Part of that bubble said, and the bubble can talk. We've got you. The [9:03] bubble is actually going to level the balance of power. So now the bubble is on a scale between us [9:09] and you. Now Eamon, from what I understand, Thomas Friedman is a writer. Is that correct? [9:14] Yes. A Pulitzer Prize winner. This is, he's won the Pulitzer Prize. Yeah. I mean, [9:19] For writing. For writing. I don't know for this specific piece, but he definitely won it for [9:23] writing. I mean, let me just say this and I don't want to be bigoted here. I don't want to channel [9:27] some of the energy that he brought to Charlie Rose, but God damn, this is America. Learn the [9:31] fucking language. Let me ask you this. You were in the newsroom in 2003 during this time. [9:37] In all seriousness, how much suck on this energy was in the newsroom at that time? [9:42] That's a really good question. Look, you know, 9-11 was a traumatic moment for this country. And so [9:50] I think a lot of news organizations, a lot of journalists saw themselves first and foremost [9:55] Americans and that America had just been attacked. And so it was in a moment of vulnerability. I don't [10:02] agree with it, but in a moment of vulnerability that I think a lot of news organizations felt the [10:08] responsibility to be patriotic. And you can debate what that means to be patriotic in an environment [10:15] of war, because that's a question that we deal with in this society all of the time. Are you [10:19] allowed to criticize people in power? Should you be criticizing people in power? But I do think that [10:23] there was a line that was crossed, right? I think when you started seeing like American flag logos that [10:29] were popping up, I think in the language that was used, this type of argument for the sake of [10:35] going to war, all of those things, I think really raised very important questions as to whether or [10:42] not the media was at the time objectively looking at what was about to happen in the Middle East and [10:48] say, this is good or this is bad, or simply go along with whatever the administration was going to put [10:54] forth. And as we saw, unfortunately, not just in Afghanistan, but two years later in the lead up [10:58] to the Iraq war, when the Bush administration went out to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass [11:05] destruction and was somehow connected to 9-11, the media unfortunately failed miserably in holding [11:10] powerful officials accountable. And as a result of that, administration officials that lied to the [11:16] American public and led us into this costly war got away with it. Nobody was ever held accountable for [11:21] the lies that were pushed out. Let's take a look at that in further detail. So the second clip that I [11:28] wanted to show you, it's funny that you're saying this, this actually comes from the Bill Moyers [11:31] documentary, Buying the War. Okay, so the clip that we're about to watch, and I'd love your [11:35] understanding of this as again, someone who has not only covered the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, [11:41] but also many of your colleagues worked in the White House press office or covered the White House at [11:47] the time. So this is from the Bill Moyers doc, Buying the War. This is March 6, 2003, two weeks before [11:52] the invasion of Iraq. Two weeks before he will order America to war, President Bush calls a press [11:58] conference to make the case for disarming Saddam Hussein. At least a dozen times during this press [12:04] conference, he will invoke 9-11 and al-Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not [12:10] attacked America. Mr. President, if you decide... But the White House press corps will ask no hard [12:16] questions tonight about those claims. Listen to what the president says. This is a scripted. [12:25] Thank you, Mr. President. How was... [12:26] Scripted. Sure enough, the president's staff has given him a list of reporters to call on. [12:32] Let's see here. Elizabeth. Gregory. April. Did you have a question or did I call upon you cold? [12:42] I have a question. Okay. [12:43] I'm sure you do have a question. He sort of giggled and laughed and the reporters sort of [12:51] laughed. I don't know if it was out embarrassment for him or embarrassment for them because they [12:55] still continue to play along. After his question was done, they all shot up their hands and pretended [13:00] they had a chance of being called on. Mr. President, how is your faith guiding you? [13:04] My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance. So what in the North Korea is going on [13:13] right now? I mean, the way they all raise their hands in unison at the same time. [13:19] Take me through what we just watched here in this Bill Moyers documentary. [13:22] So I think it's important to kind of separate two things, right? One is the process and the decorum. [13:26] And I think that generally speaking, you know, the institution of the White House tries to maintain [13:32] these types of national press conferences in a bit of a decorum so they don't descend into [13:36] shouting matches, right? And maybe we expect that to be a little bit more robust. But in a situation [13:41] like that, nationally televised, you're trying to kind of bring a little bit decorum. So I don't [13:45] think that necessarily having, and I'm pretty sure the idea of questions being submitted to the [13:51] White House is a non-starter. It normally doesn't work like that. Usually what happens is there are [13:56] reporters, they say they want to ask questions. And so to keep the process and the flow at a baseline [14:00] level of respect where everyone gets a chance to ask a question, he'll call on people. And there's [14:04] also a little bit of seniority. There are people who've been covering the White House for many years. [14:08] They represent national organizations. They represent agencies. And so I think there's a [14:13] little bit of a decorum to the process. But the second part of that, which is the question, [14:18] what do you want your White House correspondents and White House reporters to ask the President [14:22] of the United States? Are you trying to humanize him? Are you trying to get into his psyche? Or are [14:26] you trying to understand the power and the responsibility that he has to the American people [14:31] and what he's about to embark on? [14:32] And so are you basically saying that asking him about his faith is probably the wrong thing to do at [14:36] this point before they invade? I think that would be the wrong place to do that type of [14:39] interview. If I was running a profile about, and I think understanding the psychology of a [14:42] president is important. I think if you're about to interview the president or do a press conference [14:47] in which the national media is watching, I don't care about his personal psychology. I care about [14:52] his responsibility to the American people. Having said that, if I was a reporter who writes for [14:57] Life magazine or Lifestyle magazine and I wanted to do a profile, yeah, I would ask him about his [15:02] faith. And I would ask him, is there, you know, is there tension between his faith and the legality [15:06] of the war that he's going to do? I mean, there's all kinds of questions that you can ask about it. [15:09] That's not the venue that I would have used to ask that question. [15:11] Well, you know, what's crazy is some of those faces I recognized from when I did the White House [15:15] correspondence here. So they're pretty prominent journalists. [15:16] Very much, very much. [15:18] You know, for me, that type of question that was asked on March 6, 2003, that's the equivalent of the [15:24] 2026. Hey, George W. Bush, what is your get ready with me in the morning? That's the GRWM of questions. [15:30] By the way, when you're about to invade Iraq. I mean, it's kind of insane. [15:34] That's what I mean. [15:35] Am I crazy for thinking that? [15:36] Absolutely not. Absolutely not. [15:38] Now, do you think it's weird that people who push for the Iraq war, like Thomas Friedman, [15:41] Bill Kristol, and David Frum, not only still have a platform, but they're widely respected by [15:44] Democrats? [15:45] Yes, they should not be. They should not be because I think when you get so many things wrong and you [15:53] make a case for war that is based on lies and grounded in effectively illegal action, [16:02] there should be accountability. There should be accountability. You should not be promoted [16:07] and elevated and given a bigger and wider platform. [16:09] When I watch footage like this, it feels very similar to what's happening with the Trump [16:14] administration now. So when there's pearl clutching in regards to orange man bad, [16:20] orange man is violating norms when it comes to coverage of the White House. Is that particularly [16:26] new or has it been happening for a long time? [16:30] It has been happening for a long time, but I think it is happening differently now. It is [16:34] happening in a much more intense way. The administration has figured out that it can, [16:38] this administration has figured out that it can manipulate journalists in a much more effective [16:44] way. So, you know, you take, for example, what is happening at the Pentagon. The Pentagon [16:48] wants favorable coverage of its actions in the war. So what do they do? They make sure that [16:54] journalists are willing to kind of sign agreements or rules that they have to comply with in terms of [17:01] the coverage. You look at what's happened at the White House. We've gotten rid of a lot of [17:04] journalists. The White House wants sycophants, basically. So they've brought in all these influencers [17:08] and far right bloggers and, you know, all kinds of like social media personalities. And when you watch [17:15] the types of questions that they're asking, it's just basically, you know, either MAGA talking points [17:20] or cult-like worship of Donald Trump. How do you sleep at night? You know, how do you do it? [17:25] You're such an amazing guy. Why do the Democrats not like you? [17:28] Or the UFC fight. Where's the fight going to be? [17:31] Exactly. Where's the fight going to be? [17:33] What part of the lawn is going to be on? [17:34] Exactly. And so when you have this kind of like breakdown of the responsibility and the roles [17:39] of journalists in these very important positions, whether it was in 2003 or whether it's in 2026, [17:47] it's the same through line. The tactics are different and the manipulation is different. [17:52] But sadly, it's the same type of behavior. And it probably predates television, probably predates [17:58] broadcast. Probably 100 years ago when it was just print or radio, there was probably some [18:03] relationship between people in power and journalists in which access was traded for favorable [18:08] questions or favorable coverage. And the kind of revolving door that exists sometimes between [18:13] power and media is, you know, deeply problematic. [18:17] As someone who obviously has not been doing this 25 plus years, but I'm sure you had [18:21] older advisors and mentors, what are the counterweights to combat this type of [18:28] quid pro quo journalistic coverage? [18:31] I mean, I think that one of the, you know, most important pieces of advice is that I was always [18:36] given when I was coming up into a newsroom and I started out as a producer. So I worked with [18:39] a lot of established journalists was, what are you in the service of? What are you doing [18:47] this for? Who are the people that your journalism is meant to service? Right? And I think when [18:54] you constantly keep that question as your North Star, you become less intimidated by people [19:00] in power. You care less about whether you have access or not. You care less about the prestige [19:06] of the position and what you want to compromise in order to have that prestige. And there's no doubt [19:10] that media has a lot of, you know, prestige to it in this country, certainly. [19:14] Yeah. So I think when you, when you have a very clear North Star of what it is that you are in [19:20] service of, I think it helps you guide, guide you through the pitfalls of some of the things that we [19:26] sometimes criticize the media for. And I want to be clear. I mean, you know, the media is a very big [19:32] institution in this country and is very diverse. And, you know, there's no doubt that you can cherry [19:37] pick a few examples and highlight some of the structural problems that exist in the media. [19:42] But by far and large, the work that is done on a local level, on a national level, on an [19:47] international level by reporters is tremendous. And we wouldn't have a healthy functioning society [19:52] if we didn't have the media institutions that we have right now. I mean, they need to be better, [19:57] but we also wouldn't be where we are if we didn't have what we have. [20:00] No, no. And it sounds like what has motivated Jews, you're operating from a place of moral clarity. [20:04] I try to. I try to. I mean, I try to have a North Star that the career that I've been blessed to have [20:09] has been in service of trying to foster a better understanding between a part of the world that [20:15] America is heavily invested in and a part of the world that it sadly does not understand. [20:20] And a lot of that is by luck. I'm from a part of the world. I grew up with one foot in each part [20:27] of the world. So I was able to kind of bridge that divide between, you know, newsrooms that wanted to [20:33] understand the Middle East and a Middle East that was being sadly misunderstood into America. [20:38] Can I talk to you about the war reporting that you've done? [20:41] Yeah. [20:41] Okay. So from my understanding, there's two types of war reporters that I've seen. [20:45] First, you have the people who want to shine a light on the devastation of war and the lives [20:49] that it affects around the world, perhaps showing that we're all human beings and our humanity is [20:53] what unites us all. Then there's a second type of war reporter, which is a person who wants to wear [20:57] a flak jacket and is really into call of duty. Does this track with your experience that it's usually [21:03] that type of dichotomy? [21:05] It's not that clear of a dichotomy. I mean, I think journalists, look, again, there's a [21:11] difference between broadcast journalists. Broadcast journalists are their own unique species, [21:15] right? Because the TV is on them or cameras are on them. So there is an element of performance [21:19] for TV. So let's be very honest about that. [21:22] Yeah. You weren't asked to thirst trap like this when you were a war correspondent. Not at all. [21:26] You had to be buttoned up, literally and metaphorically. [21:29] Literally and metaphorically. I was also in places where you could not be walking around like [21:32] that. So the short answer to your question is there is an element, unfortunately, of television [21:39] that you are capturing something on TV. And so you want to capture it in a, I don't know what the [21:47] right word for it is, but in a compelling way. And sometimes the people get carried away with what [21:52] they do. It can be a little bit theatrical. But I do think for the most part, journalists who risk [21:57] their lives to go into war zones do it with a good sense of purpose and understanding that they're [22:02] risk, literally risking their lives to try to shine a light on a part of the world in which people are [22:09] suffering and oftentimes people are dying. I want to talk about that window in your life from 2003 to [22:13] 2015. You were reporting from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, and Gaza. Now, look, I have unloaded the [22:21] clip on your colleagues. But why did you get into that work? And why did you put your life on the line [22:26] that 10 plus year run? [22:30] So it was, you know, a part of it was the circumstance of the events that were happening, [22:34] right? I mean, the last 25 years of the Middle East have been transformative. So when I was coming [22:38] up as a journalist because of 9-11, you had from 2001 till 2003, the beginning of the Afghanistan war. [22:45] Then in 2003 till 2006, you had the Iraq war. Then you had in 2006, the first Israel-Lebanon war. [22:51] Then 2008 to 2010, you had the first Gaza war. 2011, you had the beginning of the Arab Spring. [22:56] Then you had the Syrian revolution, the Libyan revolution, the Yemeni revolution. [22:59] Then they had the rise of ISIS in 2014. Then you had the war in Gaza of 2014. So there are [23:05] circumstances that I couldn't control. But as a journalist who was committed to covering the [23:09] region, it was just nonstop war, destruction, revolution, uprisings. And I was just very committed [23:16] to covering it. I was very, you know, I think that most journalists who put their lives on the line [23:22] fundamentally ask themselves one question at one point in their career. Is my life worth [23:30] what I am doing now? And that is a question that you ask at certain points in your career. You may [23:35] revisit it when you start a family. You may revisit it as you get older. You may revisit it [23:40] if you slow down a step and you realize that your body's, you know, changing and you can't deal with [23:44] the adrenaline as much as you used to be. But for the fundamental question of, is your life worth [23:52] what you're trying to show? It is something that most journalists answer at one point in their life. [23:58] And if you're committed to it, you stay with it. I know people who are my age now who are still doing [24:01] it. And it's not that I wouldn't do it again. It's just that I'm in a different stage in my life, [24:05] different obligations, you know, different responsibilities professionally. [24:09] How did you get your dad to be okay with it? Because I get asked this dumb question all the time. [24:13] They're like, how did you get your dad to be okay with you doing comedy? It's like, dude, [24:17] I'm doing a weekend at Rooster Teeth Feathers Comedy Club in Sunnyvale, California. That is [24:21] very different than you covering a war in Syria. I mean, I think they saw in me a commitment that [24:26] knew I was really motivated to do it. I think they understood the importance of the job. I mean, [24:31] they were very afraid. I'm not going to pretend that they weren't afraid. I'm not going to pretend [24:34] that they didn't try to discourage me at certain points. But I think they always helped me try to [24:37] assess risk and assess whether or not I was taking risks for the right reasons and whether or not those risks [24:43] were measured. Summer. It's when we share more time, more memories, and more photos. And at AT&T, [24:49] the iPhone 17 Pro is your summer essential. It's center stage front camera auto adjusts the frame [24:55] to fit everyone into group selfies. You don't even have to turn your phone. And AT&T makes sharing [24:59] those pics with everyone easy. Right now at AT&T, ask how you can get iPhone 17 Pro on them with [25:05] eligible trade-in. Requires eligible plan. Terms and restrictions apply. Subject to change. Visit [25:10] att.com slash iPhone or visit AT&T store for details. Praised as Hulu's fresh spin on crime [25:19] comedy by Variety, Deli Boys returns with an all new season. Philly's favorite corner store criminal [25:25] family is back. The Darbiz is blooming, but their money needs laundering ASAP. Enter Max Sugar, [25:31] Casino King, and Lucky Auntie's newest toxic situation ship played by the legendary Fred [25:37] Armisen. More money, more problems, and more guest stars, including Andrew Reynolds, Kumail Nanjiani, [25:42] and Lilly Singh. The all new season of the Hulu original series, Deli Boys is now streaming on Hulu [25:48] and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers. Terms apply. Now you reported from Iraq from 2003 to 2005. [25:55] Now, obviously there are many things that I could talk about, many upsetting things I could talk about, [25:59] but I want to address one of the dumbest things. I recently went on eBay and I bought a set of [26:05] vintage cards. These are the 2003 Iraqi most wanted playing cards. These were being sold during [26:12] the war in Iraq. Now, apparently all but three people in this deck have been captured or killed. [26:19] Is this weird? Is this weird that I had to buy a pack of terrorism trading cards? Is this what we [26:25] have to do to explain things to the American public? This is very weird. I'll tell you something [26:29] though, that was made for American soldiers, which is even more interesting. [26:35] And this deck of cards is one example of what we provide to soldiers and Marines out in the field [26:42] with the faces of the individuals and what their role is. [26:45] Yes, you can get that now and they're available. But this was something that the Pentagon did [26:50] in the lead up to the war and basically handed those out to soldiers to kind of be on the lookout [26:56] in Iraq for these types of... I mean, that's weird that a soldier wanted to flip it. He's like, [27:02] look, I have no use for this because I bought this off eBay. I mean, what do you find particularly [27:07] weird about it? There's an element of gamification of war in the way these things are presented. So I [27:16] think that there is a lot of propaganda in war, right? And when governments embark on leading a [27:29] country to war, you want to try and convince your public and your narrative of a just war. You want [27:35] to make your soldiers believe that what you're about to embark on is a just war. And you want to [27:41] try to make it as simple as possible to see the other side, not as humans, but as enemies. And if [27:50] you can reduce them to playing cards, if you can strip away anything to do with who these people are, [27:58] why they're in this situation, whether they are ministers or officials or ordinary people, [28:03] it becomes easier for you as a soldier, as a society to accept killing them, to accept violence [28:11] against them. Turn them into Marvel villains. Turn them into Marvel villains. Magneto, Red Skull, [28:17] Loki. Right. Green Goblin. Capture, kill, problem solved. Exactly. Exactly. What's your reaction to [28:29] that as someone who covers this in the media? And how did you respond to some of your colleagues [28:35] that overly simplified it into a trading card-like situation? Well, sadly, the problem hasn't been [28:42] solved. You've killed leaders and leaders are interchangeable. I mean, you're literally seeing [28:46] this play out right now in Iran, right? No playing cards in Iran, but the narrative of we've killed [28:51] their supreme leader only for a new supreme leader to emerge. Or whether it is we've killed the top 40 [28:58] Iranian generals and scientists only for a new generation of leaders to emerge. So the idea that [29:05] you're just going to kill your way through a leadership and expect that to change the fundamental [29:09] problems of any society has proven time and time again has not worked. So whether you are a member [29:14] of the media or a member of the media class who advocates for that type of policy or you're a [29:22] politician who advocates for that type of policy, I simply say it doesn't work. History has shown us [29:27] it doesn't work. People who study this have told us it doesn't work. And you have to find another [29:31] solution other than just simply bombing your way through it. Most Americans have forgotten about Iraq. [29:35] That was like five wars ago. But how did our interventions impact what's happening on the [29:41] ground in Iraq today? I mean, we decimated a state. We destroyed its institutions. We fractured the [29:50] country ethnically. We allowed that country to descend into civil war. And that bred a generation of [29:56] terrorists that went on to attack Europe and the United States as a result of ISIS. That faction of [30:04] of a group then spilled over into Syria, destabilized Syria and led to violence and civil war in that [30:11] country. Those two things combined led to millions of refugees displaced across the region that we're [30:18] still suffering from around the world as a result of that. Economically, it suppressed a part of the world [30:24] that historically had been very vibrant and had at one point thriving culture, economy, science, trade. [30:31] All of that has been set back decades as a result of America's invasion of war in 2003. And not to [30:40] mention the damage that it has done to American soldiers, to American lives, to American treasure, [30:46] and also to our understanding of rule of law and accountability. I say this all the time because [30:52] no American official was ever held accountable for the lies that they led us into war based on. I mean, [30:59] American officials lied. We know that they lied. They fabricated all kinds of excuses. And no American [31:05] official was ever held accountable for that. What type of accountability are you talking about? [31:09] Well, for starters, public accountability. I mean, I think that we never had a reckoning in this country [31:15] about what led us into that war. Who are the officials who drummed up these excuses? You know, [31:22] there was a 9-11 commission after the 9-11 attacks, but we never carried out such a commission in the [31:26] 2003 war that pinpointed and said, this was the failure in the American political system that [31:33] allowed for this type of mistake to happen. And again, I bring up a very important point here. [31:40] When you think of American presidents and their ability to launch wars, [31:45] they have to, under American law and the constitution, get authorization from Congress. [31:50] Now, there are certain loopholes that allow American presidents to conduct war for short periods of [31:54] time, like 60 days. But fundamentally, you have to go to Congress, which is the most deliberative [31:59] body in America to say, we want to go to war, provide us the funds and the means to declare that [32:04] war. And what we're seeing right now is America and presidents using the authorization for the use of [32:13] military force, AUMF, that was passed in 2001 in the wake of 9-11. [32:21] Right after the attacks, the Bush administration demanded from Congress the legal authorization [32:26] to use military force against those they deemed responsible for the attack. The Senate soon [32:31] approved the authorization for use of military force. In the House, it passed 420 to 1. [32:38] The lone dissenting voice was Democratic Congressmember Barbara Lee of California, [32:43] who three days after the 9-11 attack, voted no. [32:46] Some of us must say, let's step back for a moment. Let's just pause just for a minute [32:51] and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control. [33:00] There was this AUMF that was passed that basically said, we're at a war with terrorism, [33:05] the so-called war on terrorism. And that has been open-ended. There's no end to that war. [33:11] Anytime any American president wants to come and just use it, they can use it. They literally used it [33:15] to justify the Iraq war. They use it to bomb in Nigeria. They use it to bomb in Yemen, in Somalia. [33:22] They used it to bomb in Venezuela, which is like, well, what does that have to do with the war on [33:26] terrorism? And as you probably have noticed in recent weeks and months, the narrative that [33:30] Venezuela was now becoming this nexus of narco-terrorism allowed them to say, well, we're still [33:38] using the 2001 AUMF to carry out strikes and regime change in Venezuela because there's a [33:44] connection between Venezuela, an alleged connection. They never provided any evidence, but an alleged [33:48] connection between Venezuela and Iran and terrorist groups and narco-trafficking, which they now call [33:53] narco-terrorism. [33:55] You live in Gaza. You are one of the only American anchors that has actually lived in Gaza, and you [34:01] lived there for over two years. What perspective did that give you? [34:04] I mean, it changes your life. It changes your life on several experiences. One, living through a war, [34:11] which I did in 2008, 2009, was just incredibly profound, deeply disturbing, and that changes you. [34:18] But also understanding on a granular level what has happened in Gaza over the course of 20 years, [34:26] and where that situation has brought us to today, you realize how many missed opportunities there were [34:34] to write a different course of history than what has happened. [34:38] How did living through a war in 2008 and 2009 shape you? [34:45] What do you witness on the ground that changes your life or the trajectory of your life or even the way [34:51] you look at the issue? [34:53] Man, you witness so much suffering. You witness so much pain. You witness so much innocence being [35:00] destroyed and lost. At one point in Gaza, it wasn't in 2008, but it was in a later war that I covered in [35:05] 2014. I remember interviewing a mother who had infertility problems, and she finally managed [35:15] to have kids, and her kids were killed as a result of an Israeli strike. And I remember just kind of [35:23] speaking to her and her showing me, you know, the results of her fertility exams when she found out [35:28] that she was pregnant the first time. It was one of the things that she was able to preserve. [35:31] And it was just unbelievably heartbreaking. You know, I wouldn't appreciate that even more so until [35:37] years later in my own life, just like having children and knowing people who have had fertility [35:43] problems. And you kind of go back and you think about that moment and you realize what a tragedy [35:49] that human beings are still doing this to each other and capable of inflicting such harm and destruction [35:55] to each other because they refuse to talk to each other and refuse to be able to understand each other [36:00] and what people want. In 2014, you reported from Gaza during Operation Protective Edge. [36:06] I've heard you talk about this story of you on the beach and what you witness. Take us through that. [36:14] Sure. It was during the war, and we were out on an assignment in Gaza City and returning back to our [36:19] hotel as a crew, and we were kind of using our hotel that was on the beach at the time, the Dira Hotel. [36:25] We were using it as our kind of makeshift studio and workspace. A lot of foreign journalists stayed there. [36:30] It was actually one of the few buildings that was known to the Israeli military because it housed so [36:37] many international journalists, but also occasional UN workers. And when we were returning to the hotel [36:43] after being out in the field for a couple of hours, there were a group of children who were playing [36:48] just in front of the hotel soccer. And we were just kind of mingling going into the hotel. I saw the [36:56] kids. We kicked the ball around for a few minutes. They then ran to the outside onto the side of the [37:02] hotel down towards the beach. And surprisingly, even in the middle of a war, a lot of Palestinians [37:08] in Gaza would go to the beach just for a few minutes of rest and, you know, escapism, if you will, [37:16] to look out into the sea. So the kids went to the side of the beach, that's the side of the hotel down [37:21] to the beach. A group of journalists were kind of sitting on the terrace of the hotel overlooking [37:25] the beach. And I was in the lobby, I think going to my room, when a series of strikes happened. [37:34] Gaza officials say the youngsters from the same family were playing when they were killed by [37:39] shelling from an Israeli gunboat. [37:41] And of course, in the immediate, you know, aftermath, we didn't know who was struck. We don't know what was [37:45] struck. But a lot of the foreign journalists who were sitting on the terrace of the hotel immediately [37:49] saw that it was a group of young kids who had run down from the main road onto the side of [37:54] the hotel to the beach. And immediately we ran, you know, ran down to see what had happened to them. [38:03] Incredible pictures that were taken by various photographers. And then immediately we realized [38:08] they were young kids. I and my crew ended up getting in a separate vehicle, driving to the hospital, [38:16] following the car that was carrying the children that had just been struck. And we had arrived [38:22] just as the mother was arriving to the hospital, where she had found out that her kids, and I think [38:32] also because they weren't all for her kids, it was her her two of her kids and maybe and some cousins, [38:36] but it was all from the same family. I don't want to get it wrong. But it was four children from the [38:41] same extended family. And one of the mothers had arrived and had heard the news that they were killed. [38:45] Did you see the coverage from The Guardian by Peter Beaumont? [38:49] Yes. [38:49] Okay. So I want to show our viewers this, but let's let's just revisit this real quick. [38:53] So this is how it was written about in The Guardian. The first projectile hit the sea wall of Gaza [38:58] City's little harbor just after four o'clock. As the smoke from the explosion thinned, four figures [39:03] could be seen running. They waved and shattered at the watching journalists as they passed a little [39:06] collection of brightly colored beach tents used by bathers in peacetime. It was there that the second [39:10] shell hit the beach. Those firing apparently adjusting their fire to target the fleeing [39:15] survivors. So this part I found to be particularly disturbing. All the journalists were there, [39:24] but what Peter is kind of setting up here is that those children were targeted. [39:30] Yeah. [39:30] Am I reading this correctly? [39:32] Yes. [39:33] Yeah. [39:34] You were there with NBC News. Is it true that you didn't report on this on NBC News that night? [39:44] Yeah. I mean, there's a little bit more context to it, but yes. Yeah. [39:47] And then were you asked to leave Gaza and were you replaced by another reporter? [39:55] Yes. [39:57] The correspondent was Richard Engel. [39:59] Yeah. [39:59] So is he more of a call of duty reporter? [40:03] No. [40:05] I mean, would you say he was essentially parachuted in? [40:08] Well, he didn't. He wasn't in Gaza at the time. I think the frustrating part about that [40:12] experience and that moment was that Richard was in Tel Aviv. I was inside Gaza. He was in Tel Aviv. [40:20] And so I had witnessed the event. I had seen the event. I had gone to the hospital. I had interviewed [40:25] the mother. I had interviewed one of the survivors. And our crew filmed it. And it was extremely [40:33] frustrating. But at the time, the editorial decision was to have Richard, who is the chief [40:38] foreign correspondent, do the story from Tel Aviv. And there's a variety of factors that go [40:44] into making that decision. It's not something that I make. It's the various producers and show [40:49] executives that make those decisions. [40:51] You've also written about the use of white phosphorus. Now, I've seen that recently come [40:56] up again. What is white phosphorus? [40:59] White phosphorus is a munition that basically when deployed, I mean, it's a chemical agent. When it's [41:06] deployed, it creates an unbelievable glow in the sky in a big white cloud. And it's not illegal under [41:13] international law to use, but it's regulated as to when it can be used in very specific areas. [41:18] So it's supposed to be meant to be used by armies advancing against other armies. And if you're [41:23] advancing and you want to kind of like create a smokescreen so the other army doesn't see where [41:27] you are in your troop movements, that's when it's allowed to be used in open areas. Unfortunately, [41:32] in Gaza, the Israelis used it on very densely populated civilian areas where there are no [41:38] standing armies. And so the white phosphorus is extremely toxic, but it's also very dangerous. [41:46] And it burns. And it literally, if it lands on you, it will burn a hole through your flesh, [41:50] through your bones, through everything. So they deployed that on a lot of the northern parts of [41:56] Gaza. And it was very sad because there were parts where young children didn't know what it was. And [42:01] they were kind of running out to kind of kick the little, you know, piece of the white phosphorus that [42:06] had landed in their community, not knowing what it was. And it would burn through them. In other cases, [42:10] it would land on the building and burn and create all kinds of damage and destruction. [42:14] On the ground in Jabalia, home to more than 100,000 Palestinians, children unaware of the deadly [42:21] toxin dropped on them, naively playing with the munitions. [42:24] As allegations that Israel is using weapons illegally against the civilian population mount, [42:30] a claim that Israel rejects, there is no doubt that it's the Palestinian people that are continuing [42:34] to suffer. And there's no sign that the suffering will end anytime soon. [42:40] Ayman Mohyeddin Al-Jazeera, Gaza. [42:42] The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that in 2025, 129 media workers were killed, [42:46] the highest since they started tracking. Now, most of these people were in Gaza. [42:51] Do you think your colleagues in America feel that solidarity with those journalists? [42:56] No, not enough. [42:57] Why? [42:57] You know, it's a good question. I don't know if I have an answer for it. I just think that [43:05] it's not as strong as it should be. You know, I think there are so many layers to covering the [43:14] Israeli-Palestinian conflict that make it difficult for American journalists. And empathy and sympathy [43:21] are probably two of them. There is sometimes a lack of solidarity, as you said, but I think it has [43:27] to do more with a lack of awareness and having no experience there on the ground. I don't think [43:33] that they necessarily see Palestinian journalists like themselves. They don't see them necessarily [43:38] as, you know, white European journalists like some of their colleagues. And so I think sometimes [43:43] there are reasons to that structural distance. And it's very disappointing. I don't, I don't agree [43:49] with it. I mean, I think the community of journalists, irrespective of where you are in this world, [43:53] should be very united, should stand up for the same principles, and should not engage in what [43:59] some journalists in this country have done, which is to try to vilify other journalists and justify [44:04] their targeting and justify their killing, which I find extremely disturbing. And what's an example of [44:09] that? I mean, there are journalists in the U.S. and who have made cases as to why Palestinian [44:14] journalists are not real journalists, that they are affiliated with militant groups. You know, [44:20] there was an infamous article that came out about Palestinian journalists that basically tried to [44:27] dehumanize them and say, they're not like how we think of journalists. They're not the same types [44:31] of journalists that we have in our society. And I think that basically serves as a justification or [44:37] as a baseline justification for the use of violence against Palestinian journalists, which is, [44:41] you know, as I said, completely unacceptable. You're talking about this idea of empathy and sympathy. [44:47] What do those ideas mean to you? What do you mean? Because you've talked about the double [44:50] standards and media coverage in regards to the many conflicts that the United States is involved [44:54] in around the world. It seems like empathy and sympathy and the lack of that seem to be a [44:58] consistent... Yeah, I mean, I mean, if you tell me there was a group of Mexican journalists that were [45:04] killed trying to report on the cartels in Mexico, or a group of journalists in Ukraine who are trying [45:11] to report on Russia's war in Ukraine, irrespective of anything that these journalists do, [45:18] irrespective of how they cover the story, irrespective of their politics and their viewpoints [45:23] or the news organizations that they work for, I am always going to be sympathetic and I will have [45:29] empathy for the work that they're trying to do. That is like where my baseline level of operating [45:34] is. I don't sit there and try to justify and say, well, what was the journalist doing there? Well, [45:39] that was kind of reckless of the journalist, or that journalist deserved it, or that journalist worked [45:42] for a state-affiliated outlet, or that journalist worked for, you know, Russia 24, or that journalist [45:49] works for whatever. So I try to separate myself first and foremost to saying, like, if you are a [45:55] journalist working in the complex layers of journalism around the world, you will have my [46:00] sympathy and empathy. There are layers then to, you know, outside of safety and death, do I agree with [46:07] that journalist? Do I support that journalist? Do I support that kind of reporting? That's a completely [46:11] different debate, but the baseline of solidarity for journalists and their right to do their job [46:19] and their profession without fear of being killed, attacked, detained, harassed, as we're seeing in [46:25] this country, that is absolutely unacceptable. Guys, it's summertime and I want to glow from within. [46:31] This is not an ad for Islam, though, inshallah, you will find it. I am talking about a healthy glow [46:36] from nutrients and fiber. Now, here's the problem. Y'all know how hard it is to keep your routine when [46:41] you travel. Now, I travel a lot and it's even worse in the summer. Wedding season will be the [46:46] death of me. That is why this month I am checking a suitcase full of Huel. That is H-U-E-L. We are [46:52] officially halfway through this year and I am hanging on to my New Year's resolutions by a hangnail. [46:57] Huel is the one reason I haven't completely fallen off my nutrition goals. The black edition ready to [47:01] drink has been my salvation. I drink it ice cold from the fridge and it's got 35 grams of protein, 27 [47:06] essential vitamins and minerals, and seven grams of fiber per bottle. It is a complete meal, [47:10] not a protein shake, and it's less than five bucks a serving. Cheaper than a latte and much [47:15] better for my tummy. Huel is 100% plant-based, gluten-free, and has no artificial sweeteners, [47:20] colors, or flavors. Plus, it's prep-free. Just chuck it in your suitcase. Get this limited time [47:25] offer. Get 15% off on Huel online with my code Husson15 at Huel.com slash Husson15. New customers only, [47:32] limited time, so don't sit on it. Thank you to Huel for partnering and supporting our show. [47:36] You know what, guys? I am sick of banks making me feel the fool. Overdraft fees, ATM fees, [47:42] I feel like they're just waiting for a screw-up to cash in big time. It feels gross. Dare I say [47:47] predatory. But now I know about Chime, and you need to too. They offer the most rewarding fee-free [47:53] banking out there. Free ATMs, no monthly fees, built for you, not the 1%. You know Chime is the bank of [47:59] the people because when you call them, you get actual people. That's right, human beings. No robots with [48:05] typing sounds. Why do they always have the typing sounds? It's like, I know you're a robot. Just [48:09] admit it. You can actually earn benefits with Chime, including 5% cash back on the Chime card in your [48:14] category of choice, like gas or groceries, savings that grow nine times faster than the national [48:19] average with a 3.75% annual percentage rate, and you even get airport lounge access included with [48:26] your Chime card. I just wish I'd known about Chime sooner. Chime is not just smarter banking. It is [48:30] the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee-free today. Head to [48:36] Chime.com slash Husson. That is Chime.com slash Husson. It only takes a few minutes to sign up. [48:41] Chime is a fintech, not a bank. Banking services for Chime card provided by Chime's bank partners. [48:45] Optional products and services may have fees or charges. Stated annual percentage yield and cashback [48:51] for Chime Prime only. No minimum balance required. For more information on APY rates and travel perks, [48:55] go to Chime.com slash disclosures. [48:58] Chime is a fintech, not a bank. Banking services for MyPay and Chime card provided by Chime's bank [49:01] partners. Optional products and services may have fees or charges. Stated annual percentage yield [49:04] and cashback for Chime Prime only. No minimum balance required. Checking account ranking based [49:07] on a J.D. Power survey published October 20, 2025. For more information on APY rates, MyPay, [49:11] spot me, and travel perks, go to Chime.com slash disclosures. [49:13] You know, for me, you almost feel like the Forrest Gump of recent Middle Eastern history [49:17] because you reported from Gaza, you reported from Iraq, from Syria, from Ukraine. You were also at the [49:24] career square in 2011 with Al Jazeera. Now, as someone who was born in Egypt, what did that [49:29] moment feel like for you? Oh, it was incredible. It was very emotional. It was probably the only [49:34] time I think I cried on TV. What did that moment mean for you? [49:39] I mean, it was a moment of... Yeah, I mean, so growing up as an Egyptian American, you always [49:45] had this sense that Egypt as a country had tremendous potential. It is a great country with [49:50] great people, great history, and unbelievable sense of national identity. But it never realized [49:59] that fulfillment. It never fulfilled that promise, if you will, of what it can be because of a variety [50:04] of reasons. And one of the reasons was that it was not a free society, that it was always ruled in [50:10] an authoritarian way so that the people, the great people of Egypt never were able to fully realize [50:15] their potential. So in that brief moment in 2011, I think that the vast majority of Egyptians felt [50:22] that they were about to realize that potential. They had just overthrown an authoritarian leader [50:28] who had been there for, I think, 30 plus years, if not a little bit more. And there was this sense [50:34] of euphoria that the country was going to transform into a truly free, democratic, tolerant, [50:41] pluralistic society. Well, how do Egyptians put that whole thing in perspective now? [50:46] Specifically, you have the revolution, and it's followed by another dictatorship. [50:51] Are they just like, all right, look, we tried. It didn't work. Now we just got to kind of lay [50:56] back in the cut. I mean, what is the sentiment now? I think there are different parts of society that [51:02] have different feelings. I mean, one part of society definitely feels that the instability of [51:07] the 2011 revolution is not worth the headache, right? Like 2011, as one would expect, brought a [51:13] lot of instability. And with that instability brought a lot of uncertainty, both economically, [51:18] politically, security wise. And so people were like, oh, I don't like this. I want my life to be [51:22] as stable as possible. I don't want this disruption in the quality of my life. I don't want this sense [51:27] of anxiety. I don't want this sense of uncertainty. I don't want this economic hardship. And so people [51:32] were like, just put it all back into a bottle and bring about whatever leader that's going to kind [51:37] of like stabilize the situation and try to improve the economic and political situation. That [51:42] unfortunately was a deal that was made that has brought about more restrictive and authoritarian [51:49] politics in Egypt. And that's where we find ourselves today. [51:53] Is there still a strong resistance that continues? Or has that pretty much been quelled and quiet? [51:58] I don't know if I would use the word resistance. I think there's still an aspiration. I think that [52:04] there is a strong aspiration in Egypt for a truly democratic society. Now, whether that aspiration [52:10] manifests itself into protests, whether it manifests itself through gradual political [52:16] participation, I think the expression that people use now is evolution, not revolution. People want to [52:22] see an evolution of the state as opposed to being a democratic, as opposed to being an authoritarian state. [52:27] They want to see it evolve into a democratic state and not just completely toppled and rebuilt. [52:33] And there's several examples in the region that show that revolutions don't necessarily work [52:37] in terms of immediate improvement. So people look at, say, what happened in Syria, what happened in [52:43] Libya, what happened in Yemen and say, those countries descended into years of civil war. Let's [52:48] avoid that. And unfortunately, the politicians as well, and some of the leaders in countries like [52:53] Egypt, exploit that and say, you don't want to end up like Syria. You don't want to end up like [52:58] Libya. You don't want to end up like Yemen. You don't want too much instability. Because if you get [53:01] instability, we could find ourselves in the civil war. And so it's created this paralysis between [53:05] a truly genuine aspiration for democratic, pluralistic society. And also this unease and nervousness of, [53:13] I don't want to rock the boat too much because I don't want the country to descend into and get [53:17] fractured and become a failed state. [53:19] And so it did that moment that you witnessed in the square when you're crying. And those are tears [53:24] of joy, I'm assuming. [53:26] Yeah, I think, I mean, like it's, my dad is, you know, my dad is an immigrant from Egypt. He came [53:29] to this country and you know, the experience when you, when you're kind of weighted by the sacrifices [53:34] your parents make and the home that they left to try to give you a better future and a promise in this [53:39] country. You ask yourself all those questions about doubt, regret. Yeah. Are you fulfilling that [53:47] promise, that immigrant promise that they had for you? And so all of that kind of came to the [53:51] surface in that moment because you realize like, man, what a euphoric moment. Is this the Egypt that [53:55] my parents had dreamt of? Is this the Egypt that my family had always wanted to see? Is this the [54:00] beginning of it? And I just got to be a part of it and deliver that news. [54:03] Are you jaded now? You know, going through that, do you become jaded at the possibility of change? [54:07] Whenever people think of big revolution or the possibility of change and quote unquote democratic [54:11] societies, as someone who got to witness it, not see it through as an American, are you like, [54:18] Hey, you have to measure, you know, have tempered expectations? Not at all. No, really? Yeah. I [54:23] remain very optimistic. I remain very hopeful in human potential. I believe that humans, you know, [54:30] yearn to be free. They yearn to have self-determination. They yearn to have control of their lives and have a [54:37] say in how their lives are governed. So I still very much believe in, you know, people's hope and [54:43] I truly, truly believe in people power, you know? Can you give me an Iran war update, but put it in [54:51] playing card terms? Have the good guys defeated all the bad guys or do I need to get another deck [54:55] of cards? You're probably gonna have to get another deck of cards because the U.S. and Israel have [55:01] killed a lot of senior Iranian officials, but the war is not over and they're probably on like a second [55:06] round of cards. There's new leaders that have emerged. We've got a new supreme leader. We've [55:10] got new commanders in the military and the IRGC. We've got new nuclear scientists. So fundamentally [55:16] nothing has changed, just the playing cards. What's your analysis of the coverage of American [55:24] media covering this war now? Have we learned our lesson from the suck on this energy of 2003? [55:31] We are doing a little bit better because the media environment that we're operating in [55:35] allows more voices in the mix. We are able to hear from Iranians directly when there is internet [55:42] connectivity, but also there are many people around the world now who can participate in this [55:48] conversation through social media, through other outlets, through independent media, through podcasts. [55:53] And because the conversation has widened, you get more viewpoints, you get more opinions. And so [55:58] anytime you have more conversation, you get better outcomes. In 2003, the internet wasn't what it was. [56:04] Podcasts weren't what they were. Social media wasn't what it was. So the conversation was very [56:09] narrow and limited as to who gets to be the gatekeeper of information. That's not the case [56:12] anymore. Have we learned all of the lessons? No. We still dehumanize and oversimplify and [56:18] reduce conflicts. Also, we just have this tendency in American media and American society at large to, [56:29] we always need to have a villain. We love the kind of Rocky IV, Ivan Drago, [56:33] Russian, you know, villain storyline. But we love it. [56:39] How should we look at it? What's a healthier way to look at it? Because as someone who has an Indian [56:45] background, we all love villains. I mean, even in Indian dramas, the villain is the mother-in-law. [56:50] So the mother-in-law is essentially ISIS. [56:52] What's another way to see that your mother-in-law can have multitudes? [57:00] I mean, it's the way that at the end of Rocky IV, he said, if you can change and I can change, [57:04] we can all change. So at the end of the day, it's you don't have to defeat your enemy to come [57:08] to that realization. It's you don't have to bomb and kill and destroy your way through 12 rounds of [57:14] fighting to come to the realization. Oh, wait, I can change. I can actually see the good in you and you [57:18] can see the good in me and we can try to find a way to talk about this. I think that we just need [57:23] to shift our mindset from constantly trying to solve our problems militarily. That is like a [57:29] fundamental problem in America where anytime we hit a roadblock or we feel that we're coming up [57:35] against something that we don't like, whether it's an economic system or a political ideology or [57:40] a country that doesn't want to be subservient to our interests in the region, our quick instinct is [57:45] to say, how do we sanction them? How do we isolate them? How do we potentially bomb them? [57:52] And I just think that is such a destructive worldview to have. You can't just constantly [57:57] be obsessed with how am I going to defeat my adversaries and my enemies militarily, economically, [58:04] as opposed to say, well, let me actually see if I can talk to them and see if I can actually convince [58:07] them of my worldview. Let me convince them of like what I have to offer that is so good that they'll say, [58:13] hey, we realize that we want to be more like you or we want to work with you or we want to cooperate [58:18] with you. But the idea of just constantly like sanctioning countries, killing people, denying [58:23] them medicine, denying them food, denying them fuel, denying them development. And if they don't like [58:27] it, we bomb them. And if they want to try to resist it, we bomb them even more and we'll go in there [58:31] and topple their regime. It's just a very barbaric way of living, I think. [58:37] Are there other forms of diplomacy that you found that are more effective that you wish was explored more [58:43] in the United States of America? And are there any sort of examples of stories that you could point [58:47] the audience to to say, hey, this is an example of pulling other levers besides, you know, military [58:53] strikes or illegal war? [58:55] I mean, some of our some of the countries that we've had the best relationships with have been [59:00] as a result of diplomacy. I mean, even if they were at one point adversaries, whether it's, you know, [59:05] Vietnam or countries that we kind of like shunned for a long period of time. And then we realize [59:09] like, you know what, maybe if we engage with them economically, culturally, politically, we can foster [59:15] better understanding. So, you know, the history of American diplomacy is long. I mean, America is a country [59:21] is a very old country. It's been around, you know, for 250 years, as we know, with as a result of the UFC [59:26] fight that's coming up. But at the end of the day, I think like if you actually engage diplomatically [59:30] with countries, Russia is a is a perfect example. I mean, it was diplomacy is the reason why we did [59:37] not go to war with Russia, nuclear war with Russia, the USSR, for the better part of 50 years, it was [59:45] it was being able to engage with them and disagreeing with them, but being firm in our positions and our [59:50] values that allowed us to ultimately kind of break through. This is something very special. [1:00:02] When I was in Iraq, I was embedded with the American military while they were hunting for [1:00:09] Saddam Hussein and his kids at one point. And so the American military, but why were they hunting [1:00:14] Saddam's kids? Well, they were trying to arrest Saddam and his kids because they felt that they [1:00:18] were, I mean, as you know, the deck of cards, they wanted to arrest and kill or capture whoever's on [1:00:23] the deck of cards. Okay. So the American military actually spent a lot of time going around Saddam Hussein's [1:00:29] old hometown and putting up wanted dead or alive posters. Whoa. In Iraq. And it says wanted dead or [1:00:39] alive, $25 million reward. Call us with any information that can lead to his arrest. And then [1:00:47] there's a tip line right there. You can email them. Yeah. Tips at orha.centcom.mil. Got it. So [1:00:54] people in Tikrit who barely had any food or water electricity were encouraged to open up their Yahoo [1:01:02] email account and email and drop a tip to Centcom. Exactly. But these posters actually are now [1:01:09] collector's items. So wait, so how did you, how did you have the, the foresight to be like, let me get [1:01:15] one of these? Well, what happened was I was embedded with the troops. And so there was like a whole stack [1:01:19] of posters and. Oh, it was like merch. It was like a merch table. No, no, they weren't. They weren't [1:01:24] handing them out. They were literally plastering them on the wall. So I was just like, oh, do you [1:01:27] mind if I grab a handful of these? And they said, yeah, absolutely. I mean, they had like hundreds [1:01:31] of them. They were literally going around. It was like, it was very like. It was wheat paste. It was [1:01:33] wheat paste. It was like, yeah, like, you know, like in New York on the green, you know, no, of course, [1:01:38] post no bills. Yeah. They were just going around the streets of Tikrit and like putting these up. [1:01:42] Okay. So I was with a group of soldiers and they said, you know what, you know, you realize as a [1:01:46] journalist that you get to witness history sometimes. Yeah. And so I grabbed a handful of these and I still have [1:01:51] some, so I'm, I'm giving you. Oh man. Thank you. So put that in your office and they got them, [1:01:56] right? They got them at the end. I don't know if it was based on a tip, but they got them. [1:01:58] You want me to put this in my office? Why not? I'm telling, I'm telling you, if I put this up in [1:02:04] my office, booking might be tough. A lot of people can't read what's, what's, I mean, it's, it's. [1:02:10] They, they got them. I know. We got them. We won.