-- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com this is "gps, the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live. today on the show, iran strikes back. the islamic republic responds to america's killing of its top general with missiles fired at bases housing american troops. a tit-for-tat. so is it now over? >> i ran appears to be standing down. >> or have we just begun?

>> the united states has to come to its senses. >> i'll talk to experts across the region about all of that, the ukrainian airliner and more. also, iran has now abandoned the nuclear deal. are we back to nuclear brinksmanship and the dangers of a regional war? a great debate. then should the united states be pushing for democracy around the world in places like iraq, even iran? i'll talk to the eminent french philosopher about this question, his fascinating documentary films in the region and more. but, first, here's my take. three months ago donald trump suddenly withdrew american forces from northern syria that were in part thwarting iran's efforts to dominate that country. >> going into the middle east was one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of our country. it's like quicksand.

>> last week he dramatically escalated america's military engagement in the quicksand, ordering a strike on iran's most important military leader and deploying thousands of military troops. how to make sense of this middle east policy? it gets more confusing. around the same time that he was urgently withdrawing american troops from what he caused the long, blood-stained area, s he deployed more. and when ask why, he said the saudis were paying money. he left some troops in the north for one reason. >> we want to keep the oil. >> all clear now? after the killing last week of qassem soleimani, trump said were he to attack any americans or any american assets, he would retaliate very fast and very hard, yet after they attacked two

american bases, trump essential did nothing. >> iran appears to be standing down. >> now i'm glad trump choose to de-escalate, but that doesn't change the fact that he reversed you see himself yet again. you see, the problem with trump's foreign policy is not any specific action. the killing of soleimani could be justified as a way to responsible to iranian provocations, but this move, like so much of trump's foreign policy, was but iimpulsive, rec, unplanned and inconsistent and as usual the chief result is chaos and confusion. trump did not bother to coordinate with iraq. after the iraqi government protested and voiced a desire to have american troops leave iraq, he belligerently forced to sanction the company and stay put until they paid billions of

dollars for the website. it might trigger the withdrawal of american forces from iraq which has been the chief iranian objective in the region for years. this is not an isolated instance. trump began his policy, threatening -- >> fire and fury like the world has never seen. >> he ridiculed its leader kim jong-un as rocket man. soon he was declaring his unabashed affection for kim. >> we fell in love. >> and met with kim three times. trump kept hoping for a deal and despite every indication that kim was unwilling kept up his one-sided love affair minimizing north korean regime of s unsurpassed brutality and despair. h

he doesn't have a policy. he has isolationism, unilateralism, belicosity. it's triggered by trump's sense that he would look weak or foolish. they're often unleashed without any consultation and then his yes men line up to support him with north korean enthusiasm no matter how incoherent. the united states has made mistakes, but over the past several decades it has had a carefully thoughtful process of decision making involving consultation with allies and has tried to maintain consistency and coherence in its policy. that hard-won reputation is now being squandered in arena after arena around the globe. for more go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "the washington post" column this week. and let's get started. ♪

you are watching angry protestors in tehran on saturday. those chants you hear say death to the supreme leader. it is the latest reaction to a tumultuous ten days in iran starting with america's killing of iran's top general. then on wednesday iran retaliated with missiles at bases in iraq housing americans. that same day iran shot down inadvertently it says a ukrainian airliner killing all 176 passengers and crew. these protests are in response to that incident. president trump, secretary pompeo and benjamin netanyahu immediately expressed support for the protesters. will the anger on the streets of tehran amount to anything joining me now in tehran?

mohamed mirandi, professor at the university of tehran. in baghdad, a reporter for the guardian and in abu dhabi, the writer in chief for the national. professor, let me start with you and ask you, how do we understand these protests which seem dramatic in that they specifically talk about the regime, the islamic republic about the supreme leader and seem to be animated by a sense that the regime should not have been engaging in a warfare without closing down the air space if it knew it was firing missiles, should not have lied disclaiming responsibility for this, should not have been as slow to be transparent with the information and all of it has produced this fairly dramatic reaction against the islamic republic and the government.

>> well, i think it's obvious that many people are upset that the government or the armed forces delayed the announcement that the iranians mistakenly downed the plane. they should have said it earlier that there was a high possibility instead of waiting for their three-day investigation concluded. the protestors that are on the streets, there are different tpes of anger. some people are simply angry that the government did this. and then at least those calling for the overthrow of the islamic republic. there are always people like that. i think it's a very bad mistake for western cunning to hedge their bets on such a group. when we saw the people alone last week commemorating general qassem soleimani, i think he who symbolizes the republic of iran and symbolizes all that they hate of the islamic

republic of iran, i think that shows a great deal of where iranian sentiments lie. >> looking at it from iraq, is this one more instance of how sectarian the middle east has become? in other words, in iraq we saw similar kinds of protests. some people celebrating soleimani's death, some people opposed it. to put it blindly is the shia celebrating -- i mean, sorry, the sunnis celebrated his death and the shia are mourning it? >> well, fareed, i'll have to disagree here. i don't think this is a sectarian moment in the middle east. in iraq when you see demonstrations on friday. these demonstrations were calling for both iran and the united states to leave iraq out of this conflict.

if we step back and see that they are in a very sectarian moment there. we have seen demonstrations in the last three months, these are post sectarian demonstrations. these are the shia masses opposing the ruling so, no, i would disagree. i don't think there's a sectarian reaction in iraq. there is what i can paraphrase as an iraqi national reaction. the majority of the people in the streets of baghdad, they oppose both american and iranian intervention in the political affairs and the military affairs. >> mina, what does it look like to you when you think about the fact that the uae is part of the fairly strong anti-iranian coalition. it seemed initially that even the government of saudi arabia and the uae were cautious. they did not want this to spiral

out of control. >> well, the uae and saudi arabia have been quite cautious for months now. let's not forget there was an attack on saudi aramco in september. previous to that, there was an attack on oil tankers and all evidence indicates that tehran was behind those attacks. they still said we do not want to see a war. people in the gulf are monitoring closely the protests movements in iraq and also in iran. not to say that one side is representative of the entire country, but there has been a nationalist movement talking about an iraqi national identity and that's important to the arab world. >> fascinating. stay with us. when we come back i'm going to ask professor morandi what iran's next move is in this extraordinary game. ♪

$12.99 all you can eat now with boneless wings. only at applebee's. fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. ♪ ♪ this simple banana peel represents a bold idea: a way to create energy from household trash. it not only saves about 80% in carbon emissions... it helps reduce landfill waste. that's why bp is partnering with a california company: fulcrum bioenergy. to turn garbage into jet fuel. because we can't let any good ideas go to waste. at bp, we see possibilities everywhere. to help the world keep advancing.

the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can plunge you into deep, depressive lows.

(crying) take you to uncontrollable highs. (muffled arguing) or, make you feel both at once. overwhelmed by bipolar i symptoms? ask about vraylar. some medications only treat the lows or the highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i. full-spectrum relief of all symptoms. with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. metabolic changes may occur. movement dysfunction, restlessness, sleepiness, stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs. when bipolar i overwhelms, (shaq) (chime) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta.

i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪ the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... it's an easy way to earn it's cashback on the stuff i'm already buying. when you have a child and they're constantly growing out of clothing, earning cashback from rakuten just makes everything easier. sometimes it's 3% sometimes it's 8% but you're always getting cashback. the way cashback works on rakuten is so they get a commission from the store and then they share that commission with me. and you have money, more money to spend because you got free money. go to rakuten.com and sign up today for a $10 bonus.

and we are back with mohamed morandi in iran. abdullah in baghdad, and mina. what is iran's next move here, professor? it seemed to signal that it was done. it now faces the pressure because of the fallout from the ukrainian airliner. it also is facing a very bad economy. is the iranian government very much on the defensive or do you expect some kind of asymmetrical response in the future? >> i think by striking the u.s. military base and the fact that

all the missiles got through the air defense systems and all of them hit the base and created huge damage, that was sending a signal to the united states that iran can strike hard and i think the fact that the iranians didn't target american soldiers was important. the iranians were warning the united states that this confrontation is we don't want to escalate but if you do, this is what we can do. and i think it's also a warning that all u.s. bases in the region, therefore, are vulnerable. i think it's especially important for those countries who are hosting u.s. bases because if those bases are used in any conflict, the iranians have stated that those states will be deemed as hostile and, therefore, countries like the united arab emirates if they are seen to be involved, the iranians will strike them hard. the emirates won't last. iranians just simply want the americans to stop threatening the country. trump has repeatedly talked

about obliterating iran, he's talked about destroying iran's cultural heritage. he's engineering a war against the iranian economy trying to make iranians suffer as much as possible even preventing iran from importing medicine, pressuring countries not to allow their food and grain to be exported. so the united states is seen as extraordinarily hostile, and to be blunt, inhumane when it comes to iran. so this is a part of iran's pushback. >> let me ask you about the extraordinary confrontation between iraq and the united states, the iraqi prime minister and plat have now asked for american troops to withdraw. the trump administration has essentially said no. it has both simply, you know, kind of said we're not leaving but then also said if you were to persist in this, we're going to essentially slap sanctions on

iraq, particularly a technical kind of not allowing you to use an account from which it gets a lot of its oil revenues. this seems an extraordinary confrontation between two countries that were allies. what happens if the americans just don't go? >> fareed, there is no love lost between the iraqi people and the u.s. army. yes, the americans did help iraq profoundly in the war against isis, but we have to remember it is the americans that are blamed for the political elite ruling iraq. the americans are blamed for the corruption that's dominant in iraq. corruption in iraq. having said that, at the same time the iraqis do not want to be dropped into the middle of a conflict in the united states. it's outrageous to hear trump talking about the iraqis having to pay for these bases as they chose to be occupied but then the decision of the parliament,

in the friday's demonstrations in baghdad, many of the people, the majority were carrying a placard saying the parliament does not represent me. no one consulted the iraqis about the decision to expel the american troops. we're in a post sectarian system but that conflict between america and iran, as it was seen in the parliament, the optics are very sectarian. the kurds and sunnis boycotted it. i remind you what people say, no, we don't want the americans to leave because we don't want to end up -- again, a war between the united states and iran will not happen in iran or d.c., it will happen in baghdad. it will happen in basra. this is the main feeling among the iraqi people. we don't want to fight america. we don't want to fight iran. one other thing which i would like to add quickly, in iraq we have -- >> can i quickly -- >> we have a popular -- >> can i first -- can i get to mina? i do need to get a regional

perspective here. mina, the argument between the uae and saudi is that soleimani used proxies to spread iran's influence across the region. do you think the killing of soleimani ends that? >> no, it doesn't end it. i wouldn't call it influence. this is militia rule. what iran does in the region is support armed groups, non-state actors that take away from the sovereignty of cunning like iraq and beyond. this isn't about influence or cultural influence it's about militia rule. i want to clarify one thing. there are no american bases in iraq. these are iraqi bases that americans are using. the bases that were struck were iraqi bases, and iraqi troops were equally put in danger, not only american troops. that's the fear. it's iraq and other arab countries may get caught in this cross fire. another point on the iraqi parliament, they've made the

point that it was not all political parties present in parliament. there's even questions about that resolution that was passed. it wasn't electronic voting. we don't even know if that vote was accurate. the current prime minister is a caretaker prime minister. he doesn't even have the legality to push forward on trying to get the americans out. you've had hasaam speak and from lebanon, saying that we're going to push out the americans, when lebanon is suffering from a crippling crisis. they are willing to crush their own countries or nations to push up forward a foreign agenda, which is an iranian agenda. >> fascinating to get voices from the region on this. next on "gps, question will return to washington, to see if

this is an american master stroke of fueling tensions in the region. a debate when we come back. from an everyday solution... to one that can take on a bigger challenge. we are solving problems that improve lives.

♪ ♪ do you recall, not long ago ♪ we would walk on the sidewalk ♪ ♪ all around the wind blows ♪ we would only hold on to let go ♪ ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we need someone to lean on ♪ blow a kiss into the sun ♪ we needed somebody to lean on ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ all we need is someone to lean on ♪

there seem to be more questions raised than answers given so far in president trump's decision to kill general qassem soleimani. the evidence offered by the white house of an imminent threat has not been forthcoming. the story has been shifting. was soleimani targeting the u.s. embassy in baghdad? was he targeting four embassies in the region? what happened to those plans? plus now 176 people have died in what some have called collateral damage from the soleimani killing. so was the president's decision

the right one? joining me now, a former middle eastern specialist of the cia. now senior fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies, and the executive vice president of the quincy institute for responsible statecraft, and the author of "losing an enemy." 1 r his rue, let me ask you, i think you have come out publicly in the past in favor of specifically killing qassem soleimani. do you think this was done strategically and in the right way? because i know that, in general, presumably you approve of the killing? >> yeah. i think it was the correct thing to do. we should have done it years ago. i mean, that man is responsible for the deaths of lots of americans. general petraeus figures that's up around 600, i suspect that it's low. i think if you kill americans

your life is forfeit. the united states may choose the time and place to exact that, but that man has spread sectarian bloodshed throughout the middle east, he's tried to radicalized shiite communities. he's been quite ecumenical in his tastes, was, to spread mayhem and to hurt the united states. so it's high time we stop turning our cheek and take him out. >> what's your reaction? >> well, i think the american public clearly do not believe that this has made them safe. the latest polls show that only 25% believe this has made them more safe. 52% believe it has not and 55, 56% disapprove of how trump has handled this. their instincts are right. this will entangle america more in the middle east at the moment when the american public wants to have the troops to come home. they don't see a strategic reason to continue the endless wars. what trump has done is make it

much more difficult for the united states to leave the region. instead it would get more entangled in these endless wars. already two going on, and now he's risking to start a third one. based on that, i think it's really difficult to see this is serving u.s. national interests at the moment and has not made america more safe. >> reuel, let me ask you to respond to trita parsi's essay. i can't recall exactly where it was. it was a very interesting point. he said, is it time for us to acknowledge that the united states's involvement in the middle east has caused more instability, tension and war than solving regional tensions, instability and war? if you look at it on the face of it, american involvement in the middle east, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, the various interventions, it does seem like it certainly has not quieted things down, let me put it that way. >> well, i mean, again, the

primary force driving these sectarian bloodshed in the region has been the islamic republic. it hasn't been the united states. i suppose you could have fond memories of saddam hussain and the hundreds of thousands of people that he slaughtered, but i don't. i think the united states, if you could fault the united states for anything, it does -- it doesn't always want to stay the course and i don't think we're going to run from the middle east. i think we should have learned that after 9/11 and i think it's high time we realized that the primary driver of instability is iran. i mean, i think it's -- it is amusing and important to note that -- let me ask you, marc, just one second. is it iran or has it been sunni jihadists? 9/11 was not perpetrated by iran but by saudi arabia and egyptian

sunni fundamentalists who were enemies. >> qassem soleimani in particular was operationally responsible for creating shiite militias in the model of lebanese hezbollah. they have somewhere upwards of 50,000 of these folks spread out throughout the middle east. he encouraged sectarianism, radicalization of shiite communities. they supported sunni jihadists. my god, the revolutionary guard corps was sending weaponry to sunni jihadis in iraq and afghanistan. reuel, i'm sorry, we have a little bit of time and i just want to give treater the last word. >> look, it's not about whether

iran is also a destabilizing actor or the idea that only one actor can be destabilizing. unfortunately, you have several destabilizing actors. the question we have to ask ourselves, has the order militarized made them safer and the middle east more stable? the answer is quite clear, it has not worked. we should be pursuing other paths instead of doubling down on something that has been devastating to the middle east, regardless of what the iranians are doing, and they're doing a lot of bad things as well, and made america less safe. if we're pursuing national interests, we should not organize around the principle that the best thing is revenge around iran. that is not a policy that will make america better off. >> this is a very important debate and we will return to it. i am sorry we are out of time, but thank you both very much. next on "gps" we're going to switch subjects. there is a lot of hand wringing new america about the power that big tech companies yield over us, our brains, our lives. americans ought to look to the east to see what may be a rather

frightening future. the new trend coming out of the east when we come back. these are real people, not actors, who've got their eczema under control. with less eczema, you can show more skin. so roll up those sleeves. and help heal your skin from within with dupixent. dupixent is the first treatment of its kind that continuously treats moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis, even between flare ups. dupixent is a biologic, and not a cream or steroid. many people taking dupixent saw clear or almost clear skin. and, had significantly less itch. that's a difference you can feel. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. so help heal your skin from within, and talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent.

now for our what in the world segment. elizabeth warren wants to break them up. the ftc wants to hal them accountable. a growing chorus accuses them of damaging democracy. the problems in america may be overshadowed overseas. take, for example, the leading chinese social media and messaging app, wechat. a platform with more than 1 billion users. it's popular beyond the chinese borders with the chinese di diaspora. it is a breeding ground for fake news that has proven uniquely difficult to monitor. look at australia. in the run up to elections in may we chat saw a flurry of

messaging linking them to a mass influx of refugees. . in the u.s., they have reached it to falling support among chinese-americans for affirmative action. we chat lends itself and it's hard to track down the origins of any posts, which are forwarded from group to group taking on a life of their own. it's also easy to register official account and post content and some are run by bloggers and citizen journalists. as a report from the tao center for digital journalism notes, those accounts can be as influential as mainstream media and many are nakedly partisan. that's all apart of the privacy

concerns, particularly within china, that wechad serves as a messaging, food ordering and ride hailing app all at once. that allows ten cent to collect a dizzying amount of data for users. this monetizing of data is at the heart of what the social psychologist calls surveillance capitalism. capitalism based on watching your every move. in china the government can easily request an access data from companies so surveillance capitalism mixes seamlessly with surveillance government. as "the new york times" reports, the government has been deploying facial recognition software in its vast security appear rat 'tis to profile and control the uighurs in the country. in various parts of the country the "times" reports they scan thousands of faces looking for ethnic weers -- uighurs.

ethnic wegers. police have put together face image databases from criminal and other records and they use the systems to track uighurs' movements. it's an exercise in mass surveillance and social control that is breathtaking but the dangerous combination of artificial intelligence is not limited to authoritarian regimes. look at india which is planning one of the world's largest facial recognition systems to aid police departments across the country. authorities can cross-check images from security cameras with a database of known criminals, missing children and passport photos. data privacy activists have revoked it. they worry that the system could be used for social policing and will trample on individual rights that they fear would be linked to the biometric database which holds the personal details of 1.2 billion people. the government has denied that it plans to link it to the new system and has started to

de-emphasize the system's role in fighting crime, but worries remain, especially as the indian government is using technology or the access to it as a level of social control by shutting down the internet in response to political unrest in several states. this week the indian supreme court declared the indefinite enter in the shutdown in kashmir is illegal. hot trends come from emerging markets that are deeply troubling. next on "gps" weeks like these bring up big philosophical questions about the use of western power. luckily enough i have a great philosopher who thinks about just those questions joining me next. back in a moment. with bernard hen -- henri. don't forget, if you miss a show go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my itunes podcast. ♪

♪ but when we found out our son had autism, his future became my focus. lavender baths always calmed him. so we turned bath time into a business... ♪ ...and building it with my son has been my dream job. ♪ at northwestern mutual, our version of financial planning helps you live your dreams today. find a northwestern mutual advisor at nm dot com. you don't usee this old tno!g, do you? or how 'bout this dinosaur right here? nope! then why are you still using a laser printer? it's got expensive toner cartridges. but this... is the epson ecotank color printer. no more expensive cartridges! big ink tanks. lots of ink. if you don't think this printer's right for you, just pick up your phone...

(chuckling) ...and give me a call. the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at... ♪ fthe prilosec otc two-weekymore. challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

i can worry about it, or doe. something about it. garlique helps maintain healthy cholesterol naturally, and it's odor-free, and pharmacist recommended. garlique

i want to get out of the middle east. >> that was president trump in october explaining his decision to withdraw american troops from northeastern syria. the president has long opposed american intervention in the middle east and many around the world agree with him, but my next guest makes a different case. bernard lavie is the french writer and philosopher who has directed four documentary films that demonstrate how intervention by the world's great powers can stop nightmarish atrocities, and on the flip side, what the bad guys will do if the good guys can't be bothered. you can catch screenings in new york sunday night and los angeles next weekend. bernard, let me ask you, this is an extraordinary collection of your work. it reminds one how much time and effort you have spent in all of these places. what motivated you?

why did you -- did one thing lead to another or did you always have this sense that the west should be more involved in helping these places? >> i had four times in my life the sense that we should be there, that there was a huge violation of human rights, that we have a duty, america, with its special destiny, france with its sense of universality and that we should not drop these people flat. it started in bosnia during the siege of sarajevo. seed of sarajevo. i saw the city bombed for weeks and years. and then in libya, and saudi arabia with the arab spring, and the same now. i devoted two films to the kurds, the fight of the kurds. peshmerga and the battle of mosul and then when i see your president last october that he

decides to withdraw, again, it's so -- it never happened in the military history to betray an ally, to betray those with whom you did fight shoulder to shoulder against isis. because this is where your and ours are more reliable, valiant ally, and we did abandon them. >> let me ask you, though. the question we ask more often is, we go into these places. we spend all of this time, money, treasury, it's a mess. look at libya. you wanted gadhafi removed. look at iraq with saddam hussain. good intentions are not enough. the outcome is always bad, >> good intentions are not enough, of course.

we need sole consistency, continuity, but if we had remained in libya, what if we had helped -- >> stayed engaged. >> -- stayed engaged, helped libya to manage, helped civil servants to be shaped. look at, for example, cur kazakhstan. people in the middle east, mostly democrats practicing urban rights. these kurdish ladies and men do fight for themselves for their

own families and for our values, and they do that with such -- this is what they show in my movies. in my four movies are two things. how it is in the dna of democracies to help france, and how the people of sarajevo can have brilliant people managing and building a democracy. >> do you think there is another thing happening here, where nationalism says america first, turkey first, russia first. and what you are trying to do is one of the age-old challenges and tasks of an intellectual, to remind us that we are all human beings, that the kurds and the

bosnians, the hindu and kurdish, we're all one. >> these are the links, sure. brotherhood and what was called in my youth internationalism. i believe in internationalism. but it is not only the link between my forefathers of international interests for us, americans and french, it is wealth, helping democrats here and abroad. look at what is happening today. trump decided to abandon the kurds. what happened in italy? reinforcement of bashar al assad, transformed into sort of a peacemaker. iran, which is supposed to be your enemy, filling the void in baghdad, in lebanon, building

its government up. in terms of international interests, america first means america weak. america first means america under retreat. america disavowing its own values and exceptionalism. i believe it in the shiny city on the hill. i believe in that. i believe in the great nation which was welcoming to all the afflicted and suffering, i do. and of all the places i went, i saw how they look at them. they look at america like they're the light at the end of the tunnel. what a bad policy to discourage this hope. what a bad policy to give a slap on the face of all these afflicted people who are our friends. so in terms of brotherhood, but

also in terms of national interest, we are committing huge mistakes. >> always a pleasure to have you. >> thank you, fareed. and we will be back. ♪ ♪

or here on a wifi hotspot. lte xfinity mobile has more coverage to keep you connected to what matters most. that's because it's the only wireless network that automatically connects you to millions of secure wifi hotspots and the best lte everywhere else. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, save even more with $100 off galaxy a50. click, call or visit a store today.

iranian foreign minister javid zarif said they blocked his passport. cnn has not confirmed that. the u.s. headquarters agreement

can refuse visas for whom? stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. my book of the week is stephen kinser's "all the shawhs men." here is a gripping account of the 1953 cia-sponsored coup of iran against the leader there and how much blood has flowed from that regime change. the answer to my gps challenge is d. the united states requires them to issue a visa for anyone conducting u.n. business. but when congress approved the agreement, it did add a rider suggesting the u.n. contain

complete power to safeguard security. the u.n. is the leading forum for international dialogue and it seems to me that washington is abusing by refusing them. thank you for watching my program. i will see you next week. hello, everyone, and thank you so much for joining me this sunday. i'm fredricka whitfield. we start with this breaking news from iraq where another iraqi air base, which houses u.s. troops, is hit with rocket fire just four days now after the last attack on the base in iraq. roughly 40 miles from baghdad. today's attack hit balad air base, which is about 47 miles away fromm al asad air base