♪ >> welcome to this special edition of "amanpour on pbs." tonight, a special program -- "trumps dual nuclear challenges." iranian president hassan rouhani sends the u.s. president a warning. >> translator: exiting such an agreement would carry a high cost for the united states of america. >> and the highest-level north korean defector in 20 years gives us a rare glimpse into kim jong-un's regime. >> kim jong-un is determined to reach the goal of a nuclear status, as well as icbm tipped with nuclear warheads. ♪

>> "amanpour on pbs" was made possible by the generous support of rosalind p. walter. >> good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in london. 2017 started with a bang. donald trump officially took power after his shock election to president in the united states. the new u.s. leader was now the one setting american policy and the one to answer the urgent question of what to do about global nuclear threats. on north korea, president trump away the diplomatic handbook when he called kim jong-un "rocket n" and threatened pyongyang with "fire and fury." and on iran, he made good on his distaste for the nuclear deal that was hammered out by the obama administration, calling it the "worst ever made," and refusing to recertify it, but he stopped short of pulling the u.s. out. this nonetheless left washington isolated from its allies and

world powers, who had all negotiated and signed the deal. and iran's president, hassan rouhani, told me that the u.s. would pay a high price when we met in new york at the general assembly. >> translator: exiting such an agreement would carry a high cost for the united states of america, and i do not believe that americans would be willing to pay such a high cost for something that will be useless for them. it will yield no results for the united states, but, at the same time, it will generally decrease and cut away and chip away at international trust placed in the united states of america. >> what would you do? what would iran do? >> [ speaking persian ] >> translator: we will have various options at our disposal vis-à-vis this issue if the united states pulls out of the jcpoa. and there has been quite a great deal of thought given to this

possible scenario, regarding our reaction. and if such a thing were to happen, quite swiftly, the world will see iran's steps and reactions. this action will take place in a matter of a few days. however, given that mr. trump's reactions and actions and policies are somewhat unpredictable, we have had long thought and discussions about our reactions. >> can i ask you -- because i've talked to other iranian government officials, i've spoken to officials from around the world -- what do you think of president trump's twitter diomacy? do you see a strategy? do you see policy? do you see chaos? what do you see? >> translator: well, in any way, it is a method that mr. trump has started. he knows better than anyone.

he wishes perhaps to enter into certain announcements actively and be ahead of the media. i don't see it as a problem specifically. however, what he tweets at certain points doesn't seem to be in accordance and in line with other statements from other american officials, and this, by its nature, causes a certain deal of chaos. >> what is your reaction to the leader of north korea, kim jong-un, with his sixth nuclear test, with his icbm missile tests, with sending missiles over japan, threatening american territory? what is your reaction to what's happening there right now? and he has nuclear weapons. >> [ speaking persian ] >> translator: our position has been very clear and remains clear vis-à-vis nuclear weapons. we are against any type of weapons of mass destruction, as well as nuclear weapons, and we believe that they must be destroyed throughout the world,

so our opinion, our positions are clear. arms races are not acceptable to us in any region, and we see that as extremely dangerous. however, from the other side, the positions and the actions of the united states, as well as other nations, against the north korean country has not been very positive. and i don't think there is a military solution to this. only diplomacy is the tool that will resolve this problem permanently. and i think what the iranian experience shows is a good experience that can be replicated elsewhere and executed elsewhere, but keep in mind, please, that if the united states wishes to withdraw from the jcpoa, why would the north koreans waste their time in order to sit around a table of dialogue with the united states? because they will think that, perhaps, after years of talks

and potential agreement, the next u.s. administration could step over or pull out of the agreement achieved. so such potential action by the trump administration will block such potential roads to success in resolution of regional problems around the world. >> if you were to meet president trump, what would you say to him? >> [ speaking persian ] >> translator: the way in which, currently, thus far, the u.s. administration has chosen to stand against iran and the jcpoa has been the wrong one. and the proof has been experienced by previous administrations in the united states, and the conclusion is natural to reach, that what the obama administration did in order to achieve success in this engagement, vis-à-vis the jcpoa and iran, drew upon the unsuccessful experiences of previous administrations.

however, the path undertaken today by this u.s. administration is a return to the past, to a distant past that goes all the way back to president bush number one, as well as president bush the son, number two. so these paths have already been traveled upon, they have been unsuccessful, and soon that mr. trump will see that this was the wrong path that he had chosen. >> for the u.s., it had been former secretary of state john kerry who negotiated the iran deal, spending countless hours going back and forth with his counterpart, javad zarif. he told me that president trump has got it all wrong, that he'll actually make the world less safe if he backs away from the deal, and he added in some words of warning on north korea. >> i think what the president needs to do is make sure he's not feeding into north korea's fear of regime change or of, you

know, a unilateral attack or otherwise. it's given north korea a reason to say, "hey, we need a bomb. 'cause if we don't have a bomb, we're gonna not be able to protect ourselves and they'll come after us." the iran nuclear agreement is working. that's the important thing. the world needs to embrace the fact that the region is safer, the world is safer, because iran agreed to live by certain standards. and the iaea, the international atomic energy administration, has eight times certified that iran is living up to this agreement. so why would the united states be the moving party to try to break apart something that prevents them from having a nuclear weapon? and it does prevent them from having it. so let's not break that apart. let's recognize the advantage and work to bring iran to the table on the other issues of importance to the region. >> do you wish you could've got thher ose otsues? ration says, thatactly what the it didn't bring all threlevant

issues in and it has a sunset clause. >> but the reason it didn't do that is very specific. if we had tied missiles or yemen or hezbollah to the nuclear agreement, you'd still be in vienna negotiating. there was only one objective -- get rid of a nuclear weapon. that objective was achieved, and the world is better off negotiating with a country that doesn't have a nuclear weapon, where there isn't that threat looming over you, then you are with one. now, with respect to the sunset, there's no sunset to this agreement. they are misleading the world when they say there's a sunset. it is misleading to people to suggest that really relevant, impactful, penetrating components of the oversight suddenly disappear. we have an ability to know what iran is doing for the life of this agreement. >> so, what would you say -- a south korean national-security advisor to the president told me that if the united states, if your administration, had paid even a fifth of the negotiating time and attention to

north korea -- which was zooming along with its missiles and nuclear program -- as you did with iran, we might not be in this situation right now, that the whole "strategic patience" thing has brought us to this -- >> with all due respect, that's not accurate. i mean, we actually did a lot of things. we sent emissaries. we asked the chinese to send emissaries. north korea actually rebuffed our envoy and would not allow our envoy to travel to north korea when we did a back-channel, under-the-table, quiet effort at diplomacy to try to move with the north. so i think that's just not accurate. there were lots of efforts to engage, and one of the principal efforts were our efforts to get china to do more. china ratcheted up its sanctions twice under our administration, and we recommended -- president obama recommended, and i recommended publicly and otherwise to the new administration -- they need to continue to ratchet them up. but to have had tougher sanctions on iran, which doesn't

have a weapon, than we do on north korea, which has been blowing up nuclear tests, just doesn't make sense. as i said earlier, the sanctions we have today against north korea are not as tough as the ones we had against iran. >> well, then how do you assess what people in washington and new york and the foreign-policy circles in the united states are putting the chance of a war and u.s. preemptive action anywhere between 20% to 50%? >> i think it's impossible for anybody to say anything except, "are there real risks?" and the answer is, yes, they are real. can i quantify them? i'm not gonna try to do that. i don't think one can. >> so real risks of a war, you're saying? >> yes, there are risks. but part of the risk right now is the risk of unintended consequence, the risk of tweeting yourself or insulting yourself into a position where something happens. >> resolving the matter diplomatically is critical for the whole region, especially for

north korea's neighbor, south korea, with millions of people in the firing line. foreign minister kang kyung-wha told me that seoul is not looking for regime change but will never accept north korea as a nuclear power. >> well, our policy has been very clear on this. we do not seek a hostile posture toward north korea. we do not seek regime change. we do not seek artificial, hurried reunification. we do not seek to march across the dmz. what we seek is peace, and, for us to have that peace, we must obtain denuclearization of north korea. >> there are a lot of mixed messages in the public domain. don't you have rehearsals for the assassination of kim jong-un? >> having contingency plans and having military options is one thing. how do you put all together in support of a diplomatic solution is another.

>> do you ever worry about blundering into, you know, the worst possible outcome, which is war? >> well, i think that is precisely why we really need to show that we do have the defense posture, that we have a robust military preparedness, just in case anything happens, and we need to send a clear message to north korea. their dream of becoming and being acknowledged as a nuclear power is just a misguided notion that the international community will never accept. >> so, south korea is adamant, saying the world will never accept a nuclear north korea, but some feel that ship has already sailed. the former cia director, michael hayden, told me the world has to accept reality now. >> i'm convinced, and, frankly, i think the american intelligence community is convinced that north koreans are on this unalterable trajectory to have strategic reach, an

indigenous icbm with an indigenous weapon capable of reaching the united states, and they are not going to sit down and talk to us until they've reached that point. and here's the dilemma, christiane. i've just told you what the bottom line is for the north koreans. the public statement of the trump administration is, "we cannot accept that circumstance." boy, that's a real formula for some troubled times ahead. >> so that begs the question, do you agree -- i mean, i would say, yeah, you cannot accept that kind of threat and any american president couldn't accept that kind of threat. but on the other hand, why not? >> north korea is not the soviet union. north korea is not china. north korea is not even iran, all right? so i understand how difficult this will be for any american president to digest, and i understand why the trump administration is trying to avoid that reality. but let me give you what i think is a truth, a very, very sad truth but truth nonetheless.

it is my judgment that it will be more dangerous to prevent north korea from getting to that state than it would be for us to try to cope with a north korea in that state. >> so, the question of kim jong-un's real agenda has baffled many across the globe, but now we're getting a much clearer picture. thae yong-ho once worked for the north korean leadership -- a high-level diplomat. he was deputy ambassador to britain. and when he defected last summer, along with his wife and two sons, he became the highest-ranking official to do so in 20 years. this year, thae headed to capitol hill, and i spoke to him just after his briefings there, when he urged lawmakers to step up an information campaign into the north. i want to start by asking you -- you were in congress testifying. why do you think it was important right now? what was t message you were trying to get across to american lawmakers?

>> i tried to tell american lawmakers that, before taking any military actions against north korea, we have to reconsider whether we have used all necessary nonmilitary means. >> what do you think the united states states and the west should be doing? and do you think that the u.s. is actually planning military measures against north korea? >> oh, at this moment, i think the mood for a possibility of military action is very high, and north korea is going to provoke any moment, any soon, and so that's why i think it is very important to avoid any possible nuclear conflict on korean peninsula. >> well, absolutely. that would be the worst possible

development in the history of mankind. so, what do you think the u.s., the west should be doing? >> i think, first of all, the u.s. and the west should continue the current momentum of maximum pressure and sanctions but, on the meanwhile, the west and the u.s. try every poibility to on the dialogue with north korea, you know, to tell the north korea that they would be destroyed if they continue the current foreign directions. >> now, obviously, president trump has said that -- so has secretary mattis. they've said that publicly. do you believe president trump should meet with kin jong-un? >> i think so. at least president trump should meet kim jong-un at least once before taking any military actions against north korea. kim jong-un is determined to reach the goal of a nuclear

status, as well as icbm tipped with nuclear warheads. that's why i think we should continue the current momentum of sanctions and pressure, but we should even further expand the targeted sanctions against north korea in order to tell the kim jong-un and north korean regime that the nuclear status of north korea cannot break the sanction regime of the united nations. and if they are on this direction, then the final day of north korea could be the total destruction. >> if president trump talks about "fire and fury" and calls kim jong-un "little rocket man," if kim jong-un is calling president trump "mentally denged dotard," how is this going to develop? how is it going to end? >> i think we have to admit that all those unpredictability and

rhetorics made by trump, anyhow, are stopped kim jong-un's further provocations of firing missiles around guam. north's kim jong-un even indicated he can test foreign missiles around guam, but after the rhetoric words by president trump, like "fury and fire," then he actually didn't provoke any missiles around guam. so that's why the unpredictability of president trump worked to some extent. but now i think that kind of exchange of rhetoric warnings or whatever are not necessary, and the most important thing is to deliver the policy messages towards north korea. >> why did you decide to defect? what was the turning point for you?

>> oh, it's a little bit complicated, the reason, but mainly i did not want to let my sons lead a life like me, which is nothing but a modern slave. >> you have family still in north korea. what do you think is their fate? >> i'm not quite sure what happened now, but i was happy to watch the interviews made by cnn team during their visit in last april. they interviewed my sister and my brother, and, so far, i think they looked okay. >> even though they denounced you very, very violently to cnn. >> yes, i watched all the interviews, but it made me very happy because i was able to see, anyway, their faces, and the place where the interview took

place, i learned that it was actually the house of my sister. and i was very pleased to see their faces again, and i never imagined that i could see their faces again in my life. that's why i really appreciate the work by cnn. >> well, let me ask you this, then. when you told your wife and your sons, who were with you in england, that you were going to defect and life was gonna change, were they scared? were they happy? what was their reaction? >> oh, they were very happy because my sons had a long dream of freedom and wanted to continuehereedom. but as sons, they cannot initiate to tell their dreams to me, but when they heard my decision, then they were very

happy, and they really appreciated that i decided to let them free. >> and, finally, given the state of affairs between america and north korea, where, as a diplomat, do you see the parameters for any negotiation? >> north korea is not the subject for destruction. i think we should regard north korea as a subject of change. and if our goal on korean peninsula is a peace, that's why the means to achieve that goal must be peaceful. and i think we should continue the maximum pressure together with maximum engagement, and the united states should find a way to solve these issues in peaceful means. >> and finally tonight, imagine a world casually trading dire, even atomic threats. kim jong-un's threats and

president trump's fiery responses have made loose nuclear talk the new normal, sending chills through hiroshima's remaining survivors. as our kyung lah reports, they are trying one last time to raise a red flag. >> [ speaking japanese ] >> a childhood horror that never fades. at 87, fumiko kato still feels the moment her city of hiroshima became the world's first victim of an atomic bomb. >> [ speaking japanese ] >> "we were all blown to the corner of the room," she says, "bodies on top of each other like a mountain. i was at the bottom." >> [ speaking japanese ] >> kato was in a building less than a mile away from where the bomb fell. a concrete wall shielded her from the initial blast. of the girls pictured here, kato was the only survivor on august 6, 1945.

japan remained at war with the allies, ignoring final demands to surrender. "the atomic bomb dropped in the morning," she explains, "but suddenly it became night from the mushroom cloud. people outside -- their bodies burned, their skin hanging down and peeling. walking like they don't know where to go. i witnessed the terror of a clear weon [ regal marcpls ] he war of words from north korea to america's president, she hears the echo of history. in 1945, president truman issuing a warning to japan. >> if they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. >> and now president trump to north korea... >> they will be met with fire

and fury like the world has never seen. >> [ speaking japanese ] >> "arrogance," says kato, who has not just seen but lived it. "i don't know why president trump doesn't think of a peaceful solution. they don't understand the terribleness, cruelness of nuclear weapons. trump needs to educate himself." more than 260,000 people would die in hiroshima and nagasaki from the nuclear bombs and their fallout. >> [ speaking japanese ] >> "they're treating this like it's some kind of a joke," says shozo kawamoto. "trump and kim jong-un," he says, "it makes me angry. they don't understand." kawamoto just 11 years old when the bomb hit hiroshihima, lost his parents and three siblings -- his entire family. today this elderly man spreads peace the only way he knows how. to president trump and kim jong-un, he says...

>> [ speaking japanese ] >> "your overconfidence is scary and ignorant." kyung lah reminding us that these survivors are in their 80s and 90s now. that generation is dying out and, with them, the only firsthand witness to the terrible price of nuclear war. and that's it for our program tonight. thank you for joining me for this special edition of "amanpour on pbs," and goodbye from london. ♪ >> "amanpour on pbs" was made possible by the generous support of rosalind p. walter. ♪ you're watching pbs.

♪ ♪ ♪