06/01/2018 Dateline London

Hello and a very warm welcome

to Dateline London, I'm Jane Hill.

This week we look at the situation

in Iran after protests in many

cities and we ask is

President Trump damaged

by his former Chief Strategist's

allegations of treason?

My guests this week:

Bronwen Maddox from the think tank

The Institute for Government,

previously with The Times

and the Economist.

The Irish writer and

broadcaster Brian O'Connell.

The American writer and broadcaster

Michael Goldfarb who also brings

us the podcast FRDH.

And Iranian journalist and editor

of Kayhan-London Nazenin Ansari.

Welcome to you all.

The United States has been rebuked

by some other members

of the United Nations'

Security Council for calling

an emergency meeting to discuss

the recent anti-government

protests in Iran.

China and Russia say

the unrest isn't a threat

to international security,

and Russia accused the US

of abusing its position.

Demonstrations and counter

demonstrations filled

the streets for many days,

in numerous cities.

More than 20 people have died

and hundreds have been arrested,

From your assessment, to what extent

is this something we have seen

before, in Iran, what you shall

take?

This protest, first of all, is

based in the grassroots, more

widespread because there are certain

strands of grievances and suffering

that is all coalescing into one

trap. The feeling that the

government and the system cannot

answer the aspirations and the hopes

and the needs of the people. We have

seen this protest, this was nothing

new, as far as the protest itself

was concerned, we have seen this

since 2013. Rohane was elected with

the intention of improving the

standing in the world of Iran and

the economic situation, but then

they continued, structural problems

remain, the banking system, a lot of

banks went bankrupt, the pension

system broke, in the meantime,

teachers were not paid, labourers

were not paid, factory workers were

fired from their jobs, because

factories have closed. From an

economic and financial perspective,

yes, it is hurting the ordinary

account holder and pensioner. 55% of

the population of Iran is working

age, above 25.

Very young

population. Yes, very young

population, what has happened is the

government has not been able to

really not make things better.

That

is why they took off as they did,

specifically, two events happened,

prior to this, in the past month.

Number one, the budget was published

by Mr Rouhani and this time for the

sake of accountability, and

transparency, he publicised the

amount of money allocated to

religious institutions from the

budget. These institutions and

foundations already receive ridges

arms from the people, already they

do not pay taxes, yet their

allocation increased in this budget.

At a time when standards of living

was falling.

Yes, and then at the

same time, increase the budget of

I/O GEC, because I urge you see is

becoming... -- IOGC. These forces

are becoming more involved in Syria,

with Hezbollah, paying them daily,

billions going out per month, from

uranium budget, to finance the war

in Syria, in Lebanon, Hezbollah's

allocation. Another event that

happened in the past month, two as

quites in Iran, over 700 in total

quakes in Iran in the past month.

That is a lot. Iran sits on a fault

line, the nuclear policy has not

been questioned in the street but

they are asking, my God, why hasn't

there been any safety reports

issued, why can't we know where

these nuclear reactors are, all of

these have been given hand to hand

for each other, which has

international implications.

Is it

that the implications that should be

discussed at the UN Security

Council?

This is a mistake by the

US, things that they have that it be

brought to the UN, principally the

nuclear programme, which is a matter

of international security, and the

Security Council reluctant to look

at it but they have taken steps over

the years, and that is absolutely

proper use of it. The US would be

much better advised to sit and let

this play out because it risks

antagonising people who might...

People who do not want to be

associated with the US but want to

see these changes. What you are

looking at, as has been powerfully

described, people rising up and

saying, just on economic grounds,

standards of living, what it is like

to live in Iran, we are fed up with

the way the regime is handling this.

All kinds of things that the US does

have an interest in, money going out

to Hezbollah, and so on, you have

people arguing from the most

powerful positions possible, they

resent the money going out of the

country, people questioning it. The

US should sit back and let this

gather steam, which it probably.

What we will talk about that.

What

is interesting, the US, just

briefly, I know we will talk about

it later, the US has no idea. This

is before the Trump administration,

the US has had very bad

understandings, going back to 1979,

when the revolution first happened

and American diplomats were taken

hostage. Of what the internal

political dynamics are in Iran. This

is not the first time this has

happened, and almost every ten

years. Nazaneen will tell me, 1999,

major student uprising, at Tehran

University, that were violently

suppressed by some of the fathers of

the people who were in the snout, in

the militia then. And then 2009,

after the election was nullified and

a more liberal man had been elected

who is still under house arrest, and

what I see is a pattern, every time

the regime realises it has two

liberal lies a bit, the problems

with liberalising a bit, in Iran,

any authoritarian state, you get

people's hopes up and then you

cannot deliver. Some of what we are

seeing now is what was going on in

1999 and 2009, people thought, we

have signed the JC POA, the Iran

nuclear deal, so we will get some

benefit now. Because assets overseas

are unfrozen. -- JCPOA. Easier trade

to carry on... And it is not coming

through, and after two years they

are fed up and they come into the

street. And, Bronwyn is right,

America should not be involved

because when America... All these

American administrations have

forgotten what they ever knew, if

they ever knew it, Iran is a --

Iranians are profoundly patriotic,

not nationalistic, but patriotically

they want to sort out their own

problems, they do not want

intervention, the less said from the

outside, the better.

Do you see it

as an internal problem, a lot of it

economic but more besides?

Looking

at it from afar, it does seem that

it is not like the 2009 incidents

that centred around what was

perceived as an unfair election

process, and it is far more

widespread and economically base.

And the US cannot win no matter what

it does, back in 2009, I seem to

remember, Barack Obama try to be

nuanced in what he said, he was

criticised for not saying enough

when it happened, and then to match

a week or two later, the crackdown

came. They cannot win. One thing,

probably, that the United States

could do, is, and I think this would

be very useful, if Donald Trump

decided to do it, although I won't

be holding my breath, would be to

lift the ban on travel from Iran,

his band that he initiated over

several Muslim majority countries,

that would help, it would back up

what he says in his tweets, talking

about freedom loving people and

helping people get their own

freedom. I don't think it is going

to happen but either way, it is not

going to get on the Security Council

agenda and the US cannot win on this

one.

There is a few differences between

1999, 2009 and now, 1999 it was only

students and it was freedom of

expression, you can actually chart,

you know, a rise of the movement

itself, from 1999 to now. In 2009,

it was a single issue, and it was

within the government, this time, it

is not so anymore, it is very

widespread. But, one thing that we

understand, that they are asking,

the activists, everyone, they are

asking for open lines of

communication. Because the first

thing that the regime did was close

down social media, Telegram,

Snapchat... Controlling the

Internet... Because that is how they

communicate. That is one thing they

did. The next thing, they started

beating them up, and they started

saying they were cracking down, then

they started their own

demonstrations. Bringing their own

people out. Like entering into a

football stadium with one team

playing. At the moment, what the

United States can do, and has

expressed that it will do is open

these lines of communication,

provide access to Internet.

And the

demonstrations we have seen thus

far, despite the number of arrests,

is your best guess that this will

have any impact at all on the

country's approach to Syria? You

mentioned Hezbollah, does it change

anything?

It will not pull Iran back

from involvement in those conflicts,

where it is very invested, not just

in the scraps of the moment but in

trying to build zone of influence

right across the region, what has

been called a Shia crescent. This is

a dangerous game for the US to play

because it risks inflaming the sunny

sheer Saudi versus Iran conflict

that has been called a new Cold War,

it is not very cold at all. --

Sunni-Shia. I think it cannot help

but begin to have some effect on the

regime.

It will not change, the

resolve of the Islamic Republic is

to defeat United States, to defeat

Israel. They do not even want to

acknowledge that Israel has a right

to exist. Will it change from these

red lines? Obviously not. Do the

people realise it, that this is the

way it is going to be. It is not for

the international commute -- is it

not also for the international

community to acknowledge that this

will be the same, do not expect any

change from the Islamic Republic,

specifically not in the

international sphere. That is why it

is an international issue.

Interesting, we will see where it

goes, whether there is further

protests. Let's talk specifically

about the United States as well.

There's been a swirl of claim

and counter-claim around

the White House this week,

with a new book by the US journalist

Michael Wolff suggesting numerous

staffers around President Trump

believe he never wanted the top job,

and isn't up to it.

His former chief strategist

Steve Bannon is reported as telling

Wolff that meetings

between Trump's son and Russian

diplomats was treason.

Donald Trump did try to get this

book banned, he tried to get the

publication delayed... Does that

tell us anything? Storm in a teacup?

You expect these books six weeks

after the end of the administration,

however it ends, whether it is the

impeachment... He serves the full

eight years, doesn't matter, this is

the tell all we have all been

waiting for... Except we did not

have the weight! Much of the book,

from the extract I have read, has

been reported elsewhere, it is just

that names have been put to

anonymous sources, and it is

organised in a titillating and very

amusing way. I think what the book

does show is that the war for

Trump's here is never-ending, one of

these bosses whose decision is the

last person who spoke with him.

Whatever he said, that is my

decision. -- Trump's ear. His

children, Steve Bannon, the Barbican

party trying to get easier,

initially Steve Bannon had his ear

and then he lost it. -- the

Republican party tried to get his

ear. Steve Bannon has allowed this

to go forward, to say that the son

of the president, Donald Trump Jr.,

is gone to be cracked like an egg on

national television by Robert

Mueller, the special prosecutor

looking into the matter... That is

burning your bridges with a

flame-thrower! But what is

interesting to me is the way the

Republicans have dealt with this so

far. Their initial response was to

demand the Justice Department look

into the Clinton foundation. They

are backing their man. One of the

interesting quote, it comes from

Mitch McConnell, you can correct me

if I am wrong, Donald Trump will

sign anything I put in front of him.

That is crucial, they have the most

important thing they wanted, and its

ordinary tax reform Bill, which cuts

corporate taxes which will not

necessarily mean higher wages for

people, it will mean bigger

dividends for shareholders, cutting

taxes on the most wealthy in

American society with tiny amounts

coming to the kind of people who

backed Donald Trump all the way. The

Republicans think, we have one here,

we have pulled him into our camp,

Steve Bannon thought he would pull

him into the nationalist camp... I

will get in trouble for this, the

white supremacist camp, blood and

soil nationalism, the new way

forward for America, making America

great again... I think the

Republicans feel they have won him

over and they have a sense of

control but the other thing the book

tells us is that this guy really

cannot be controlled because he has

no impulse control himself. And I

think that is probably the most

important thing of the book, it does

reveal how this guy's mind, such as

it is(!)

reveal how this guy's mind, such as

it is(!), works, we should all be

paying attention to that.

In this

era of fake news, he says he coined

the phrase, Michael Wolff himself is

a colourful character. I was

interviewing a trump supporter and

he said, you have to second source

most of these things, at the BBC,

these sources do not have two

sources, these quotes, and so you

cannot rely on it. What is the

average reader meant to take away

from this, can they trusted?

I think

they can trust the overall picture,

because it stands together as a

picture, a narrative, of how the

White House is working, and as

Michael says, a portrait of this

extraordinary president. Whether you

can trust any individual seed, is a

question. Real questions about

Michael Wolff's technique generally,

which is to write it as if he were

there even when he was not, so to

take things he has done from

interviewing people, second or third

hand, writing it as if he was there.

That has been a question right the

way through. First base, he has had

some of the key people, people like

Steve Bannon, standing up and not

withdrawing them. The only

significant kind of protest we have

had is Tony Blair saying, I did not

say that about the British spying on

Trump. No one else has rushed out to

say I'm disowning that quote. We

have not had that quote. The picture

hangs together. What hangs there is

a portrait of Donald Trump, as

Michael is saying, a man so paranoid

he will eat only McDonald's because

he doesn't want to be poisoned(!)

very odd mistrust between him and

his family members, distance between

him and his wife, advises both

clamouring to be close to him, to

impress their views on his mind and

being contemptuous of him. That

hangs there but there is also stings

in there which have some life, one,

the allegations of money-laundering

against members of the trump

coterie. That has legs. The other

one, allegations about his mental

health, questions about whether he

is suffering from dementia, the

repetitions he goes in for. And this

instability of decision-making,

those have some legs.

To his core

base, again, they will say, this is

the establishment out to attack

somebody they do not like.

Apparently this book is selling very

well in his base as well but it is

not going to change their minds. It

confirms, as you have said, more or

less what we already know, that the

White House is dysfunctional... That

all the comments about Trump's

mental health have been said by,

whether on or off the record am a by

Rex Tillerson, by Rupert Murdoch, by

HR McMaster... A couple of others as

well. These people have all said

this already, we know this. It is

confirmation of something that

should be quite worrying, yes, but I

don't think there is anything new in

it but it will sell a lot of books.

When you come to talk about

Amendment 25 and the removal of a

president or you are talking about

impeachment, you are into a

completely different thing, it takes

a long time, it is primarily a

political process, involving a vote

of Congress. We are not there at the

moment. But it is interesting to

have the confirmation of something

that we have been discussing on this

programme for quite a long time.

Does it have any long-term impact?

He has got things through that he

promised, tax cuts mentioned, that

was a promise, Paris climate accord,

supporters will say, he is

delivering on what he promised on

the campaign trail.

The tax bill you

referred to, that counts as

achieving something, despite having

a White House that the president

cannot focus on details, at least

this bill was passed, biggest tax

success for an administration. You

have had the fightback against Isis

in Syria and Iraq, the US has

increased influence in Iraq, Iraq

right now, with Iran, it is not with

them at all points. So, there are

positives that have happened, but

the potential for other positives to

happen I think has decreased, in the

sense that, let's take Iran, again,

if Donald Trump had a better stature

among the international community,

among the electorate, whatever he

would say would be basically, at

this time, when he asks for support,

people would come, Barack Obama,

take Trump out and put Barack Obama

there are, with his positive

approach, if Barack Obama had

announced support for this policy of

supporting the protest is, everybody

would except it.

Instead,...

We have

this family dynamic going on, in the

Middle East, it works, and all

colleague of mine told me, they will

love Trump in Saudi Arabia and the

Gulf because they have been telling

American presidents for years, have

your children around you. A

dangerous situation, Jared Kushner,

he inherited a position in his

father's real estate business, he

married Donald Trump's daughter, and

he goes off to react, and he spends

days with Mohammad Bin Salman, the

Crown prince, and out of it comes

this new axis against Iran, so when

Donald Trump says, when Nikki Haley,

UN Ambassador, says, we think we

should have the UN Security Council

meeting, it is all part of this new

axis of pressure on the regime,

except they do not have anything to

back it up with. The reigning

machine is stronger. That is a

danger to the way the world works.

Russia angina have vested interests

in maintaining that regime.

If

anything, when you say Iran is

stronger at the moment, it is not,

in the sense that financially,

because it is at the stage it is at

now, it cannot maintain its... It's

power...

Economically, maybe not,

but militarily...

They have been

sending Afghan militia, look at the

amount of money that has been spent,

it is upwards of 10 billion. Now,

this is not a point of strength for

Iran, and they know it as well, that

is why there is dissatisfaction...

Do you think this pressure brought

by trump through his son-in-law and

through the Saudis, is that strong

foreign policy?

I'm not saying that

for Saudi, no, I'm talking about

Iran, do different things.

It is a

shallow -based policy, the

significance of this book is whether

it tilts the mood... I take the

points that have been made, that the

base is sticking with him, but the

Republicans now think they have what

they want out of him, which is the

big tax deal, and do they now have

reason to distance themselves from

him? Midterms are coming later this

year, which Congress is going to

watch very closely, as to what that

says about whether Donald Trump's

base is sticking with him. We still

have the big crisis of North Korea

hanging there, question about

whether Donald Trump is flirting on

Twitter, talking about the nuclear

button, there is no constitutional

check on Donald Trump pressing that

button.

He could still get up

tomorrow and tweet whatever he

wants. The markets are on a role...

This book may give the generals and

others licensed to pull back a bit,

and possibly not carry out the

orders of the president.

The economy

is doing well.

The economy does well

for some people and does not do well

for others, there was not as many

jobs created as forecast. I'm not

sure about that. The bigger

question, Donald Trump is Donald

Trump, how he got there is... People

who watch this programme should

really focus on that, the Republican

Party is no longer a political party

as we come to think of them in

democratic societies, it is a

faction. When it wins, it governs as

if there is no opposition, when in

opposition, it ruins everything

possible so that it gets re-elected.

It does not acknowledge there is a

separate thing. I think... We are

all right, it is a transactional

racing chip, they got the main thing

they wanted, the tax cuts. If they

see other benefits in supporting

trump, then they will. Come June,

when they look at the public opinion

polling on individual house races,

in 2018, they may reconsider their

judgments, and basically, all senior

politicians, they do not like to be

the Millie eight it and they have

long memories, all of them, and

Donald Trump has humiliated Paul

Ryan, and from time to time, Mitch

McConnell, they swallow their pride,

got their tax bill, there will come

a time, I am certain, when they want

to extract their price for that.

Thank you very much for drawing that

to a close, thank you, thank you

very much indeed for being with us.

Plenty more to discuss next week,

same time, same place, thank you for

watching Dateline London.