A War With No Exit Strategy?

Hello everyone and welcome to the Amanpur Hour, here's where we're headed this week.

At a critical juncture for Iran and beyond, former White House and national security spokesman

Admiral John Kirby dissected the president's latest address.

This war of choice is diverting attention and potentially even weapons from Ukraine's

war of survival.

Former foreign minister Demetro Kuleva joins me from Kiev.

Russia has zero incentive to make a peace now.

Then an exclusive with Fidel Castro's influence at grandson, as Trump's oil blockade pushes

Cuba further into a humanitarian catastrophe, Patrick Oppmann reports.

Plus, lessons from history, what it was like being in the White House during the Iranian

Revolution.

Former Iran adviser to the National Security Council Gary Sip reflects on the difference

between the hostage crisis then and now.

There was no way when the threat, Jimmy Carter added in on the threat.

If he had wanted to go to war with Iran, he had a reason to do it, Trump had no such

excuse.

Plus, from my archives, Iran's revolutionary journey from young people hopeful for change

to hardliners refusing to back down.

How many people can the conservatives throw in jail?

They can't jail the whole population of Iran.

Welcome to the program, everyone.

I'm Cristiano Manpoor in New York this week.

Unanswered questions, conflicting statements and a vow to finish the job with still no

spoken exit strategy.

That's what President Trump delivered in his first address to the nation since the war

began five weeks ago.

We now know, in his own words, the President believed the war would be over in three days.

In Iran, civilians pay the highest price with nearly 2,000 people killed in U.S. and Israeli

strikes.

Trump's speech did nothing to calm markets.

In fact, the opposite.

And oil prices spiked again.

With no military plan or negotiations with Iran to resolve the crisis over the straight

of hormones, what happens next?

This repeated threat to bomb Iran back to the stone ages where they belong.

This is not only Vietnam war language, but deeply insulting to Iranians proud of their

2,500 year history.

Retired Admiral John Kirby has held top communications roles at the Pentagon, National Security Council

and at the White House.

He shares his serious concerns about this war and the future.

John Kirby, welcome back to our program.

Thank you.

Good to be with you, Cristiano.

Can you listen to Donald Trump?

Were you actually expecting him to come up with some kind of a more refined plan, delivering

a concrete end game and actually what the end would look like instead of just finish the

job?

That's what I was hoping I would hear when I heard that he, the announcement that he was

going to give a set of remarks here, more than a month in to this conflict.

I thought, that's great.

You should talk to the American people and to people around the world and explain what

we're doing, why we're doing it.

And what we're actually trying to achieve.

And regrettably we didn't hear that in the remarks.

The other thing I didn't hear was any mention at all of the Iranian people.

And that kind of surprised me because if you remember when this whole thing started,

his message was, hey, we're going to topple the regime and it's up to you.

This is your moment to take it and to run your own country.

But no mention at all of the Iranian people what they're going through and any idea of

what post-conflict governance can or should look like.

The emotions of the diaspora and other Iranians are shifting because at first they thought

Trump was coming to save them and now they're not.

Now what does that mean for the US?

Okay, we know what it means for the Iranian people.

But what does essentially not winning hearts and minds mean for the United States?

It means that this war is not going to end anytime soon.

I mean, now you had the Iranian people behind you when the bombs first started falling

and now we're losing that, not only the diaspora, but certainly there in Iran proper,

which means that the regime will get new life and will get for perhaps support from the

public that they didn't have before.

This is a regime they hate.

But now they're beginning to hate the United States even more.

And I think that that just stiffens the spine of the regime, a very radical regime still,

and may give them the resolve to continue to fight.

One of the things that we need to remember here, Christiana, is that Donald Trump in

the United States doesn't get to determine on its own when this war ends.

We can certainly determine when we stop military operations, but the Israelis get a vote,

and there's no indication that they're willing to stop.

And the Iranians absolutely get a vote on how much more fighting they're willing to do.

There doesn't seem to be any negotiations going on.

Can you tell whether there's anything happening that doesn't seem to be?

I mean, communicating and dealing with the government, the official government of Iran,

is not the same as dealing with the IRGC and the Supreme Leader in his offices.

You know, the elected leadership of Iran don't actually determine the course of Iran,

certainly in domestic or foreign affairs, in order to make any ground,

and you have to speak with somebody that has authority and accountability,

and that's going to be the IRGC and the new Supreme Leader.

Okay, so let us talk about what goals look like and were

enunciated that seem to have been pushed off.

How did you read just leaving the highly enriched uranium to take care of itself?

I saw that very much the same way that it was an attempt by the President

to pull back a little bit from the threats of actually going after it with ground forces.

Now, that could be a faint, and he was, you know,

sowing some disinformation to mask his intentions, perhaps.

But the way I took it was it was him walking a little bit back from the idea of putting ground

forces to go get it, and reasserting that, as these railies have,

that it is buried so deep that it would be very, very difficult for the Iranians to recover it

anyway, and the President is not wrong. What is he saying, do you think, as a military person

yourself, needs to happen to make sure that they've finished the job as they keep saying?

Well, it depends on what you mean by finish the job, right? I mean, if your goal is to

eliminate every offensive capability that Iran has, every missile, every drone, every ship,

and every boat, I mean, that's a tall order, and I don't think even the U.S.

military would say that that's possible. But if your job is to degrade their capabilities,

so that they no longer pose a threat to our interest in the region and our allies and partners,

that is an achievable goal. And the U.S. military and the Israeli military have been working very

hard at doing that. They have had immense military success. There's no doubt about that.

But the one goal, the other, the goal that I think is much more difficult, and this gets back

to your issue about hearts and minds, is eliminating Iran's ability to export terrorism in the region.

As you know, they work through proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and these

militias in Iraq and Syria that are not in Iran proper. They still have a measure of control

and influence over those groups. And eliminating that as a threat, the terrorism threat,

is a much more difficult thing, and it can't be done just through military means alone.

Iran is certainly not the threat to the region and the world that it used to be based on all the

bombing and the strikes. There's no doubt about that. The regime's military capabilities have

been severely degraded, and that's a good thing for the region and for the world.

I also believe that there are nuclear capabilities and their ambitions have certainly been severely

curtailed, starting with the strikes back in June. There's no doubt about that.

But you can't bomb away knowledge and you can't necessarily bomb away intention.

And how do you see the relationship between the Gulf Arab states, which American allies have

American bases and Iran going forward, given what's been happening? And also the relationship

of America with those Gulf states, would they keep having American bases there, do you think?

All of this depends on what's left at when it's all said and done. And if the regime is left

in power, if that's the way this ends, then we are definitely going to have to rethink our footprint

in the Middle East and perhaps even our arrangements and agreements with our allies and partners

in the Gulf in terms of what sort of facilities the U.S. occupies and to what extent and at what scale.

One of the things that they did before they launched the strike was disperse American military

power around the region. It's going to be interesting to see when this is over. Does that disbursement

stay in place or do we re-aggregate where we once were? I don't see if their regime is in power.

I don't see how we do that. I mean that is truly reshaping the Middle East then in a way that

presumably neither Israel nor the United States intended. Thank you very much for your very

unique perspective. Coming up, the United States diverts its attention and weapons away from

Ukraine while also helping fill Russia's war chest. Former Ukrainian foreign minister Demetro

Kuleva joins me on their four-year fight for survival. What does Europe need to do to fill this gap?

Make weapons and begin to believe that if the war comes, it will have to fight without the United States.

To have I got news for your ears, the podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black,

big episode of how I got news for your ears. Fan favorite, Anthony Ataminik. We're going to be

talking about what are we talking about? The war, obviously, a little bit of Cuba and also a

little bit of Cuba good in junior, not as much. Also, the ballroom, the library. Tony's going to

break out his Robert De Niro, which is surprising. Have I got news for your ears? Check us out on

Apple, Amazon Music, wherever you get your podcasts. Even better, you can watch the podcast on Spotify.

Welcome back. With the world's attention focused on the war against Iran, Russia's war against

Ukraine grinds on. This week, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky met virtually with US and European

officials to discuss the stalled peace talks. But on the ground, there is more escalation than

negotiation. And as Russia continues to devastate Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure,

fears mount that the weapons Ukraine badly needs are being diverted to the Middle East.

To discuss all of this, I spoke to the former foreign minister, Demetro Kuleba, who joined me from

Kiev. Let me ask you about the real sort of what Ukraine really wants and you know this more than

anything on a, not to be forced to give up territory that it hasn't lost and b, proper security

guarantees. So you might have seen President Zelensky has just tweeted after a virtual conversation

with the two American negotiators, Whitkopf and Kushner, along with Senator Lindsey Graham and in

fact, Senator, or rather Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutto standing by. Zelensky says,

I'm grateful to everybody for their work in finding the right decisions and Ukraine appreciates

every effort America is making to forge a dignified peace. We agreed that our teams will remain

in close contact and they say they are trying to strengthen the notion of the security guarantees

document between Ukraine and the United States, which is the only way he says to pave a reliable

end to this war. What do you know about the existing talk around security guarantees and whether

you think it will be strengthened on behalf of Ukraine? I regret to say it, but I'm afraid

you will be quoting many more tweets of these kinds in the coming weeks and months.

President Zelensky is trying hard to keep everything together, to move towards peace,

towards negotiated peace. The problem is that I think Russia has zero incentive to make a peace now,

to make peace now. The United States are not doing anything to change their approach to peace,

which is, as they believe, if Ukraine gives the territory, the rest of Donbass to Russia,

Russia is going to stop. Ukraine has zero evidence that would make it believe in this assumption.

It doesn't matter how many more conversations there will be in video conferences,

as long as there are no driving forces for peace on the Russian side and for the change of

attitude on the American side, Ukraine will be, you know, Ukraine's tweets will be falling on

death years. Tell me something, do you worry when you read President Trump's posts, like,

like right now, he's, as you know, very angry with NATO allies, believing that they should join

the war of choice that he started in order to open the strait of homos, and he called NATO a paper

tiger threatened to consider pulling out. Given that you want Trump to put pressure on Putin,

how does Trump's perpetual attacks and belittling of NATO affect Ukraine and affect the

balance of power in this war, in your war? The biggest risk Ukraine is facing in relation to

Trump's mood towards NATO is that if President Putin decides to grab the opportunity

and attack a NATO ally in Europe, Europe will be so focused on pulling itself together in order

to repel that attack that Ukraine will not be able to receive substantial amounts of volumes of

weapons from our European partners. So we're experiencing problems with the United States now.

Our second largest source of weapons is Europe, and if that one is gotten as well because they

will have to keep to focus on their own war, will it be in trouble? Are you getting enough help

from the EU, given that the U.S. is occupied elsewhere, including the reports that they are

diverting weapons, maybe even eventually, that being a long-term diversion because of needing

to replenish their own cupboards of ammunition and weapons? EU is doing a lot, but as long as the

war greens on, they will never be enough. History is ruthless, it doesn't judge us by the effort,

it judges us by the outcome. And the outcome is something that we're discussing right now,

it's the fourth year of the war, the year of destruction and atrocities. There is a long

way for Europe to go. I do believe they're trying their best, but there are some issues they have

to address immediately if they really want to build up their deterrence muscle and survive

without present, without the backing of the United States.

Well, I'm going to ask you what kind of muscle do they need to bring to the table,

because this is what the President actually said to this issue. Let's take a listen.

We do that all the time. You know, we have tremendous amounts of ammunition. We have

them in other countries like in Germany and all over Europe, we have, you know, we're packed

and we take sometimes, we take from one and we use for nothing. I mean, he sort of makes it sound

as if it's, you know, not not a big deal, but clearly Europe is worried, you're worried.

What does Europe need to do to fill this gap? Make weapons and begin to believe that if the war

comes, it will have to fight without the United States. Okay, so you're sounding probably more

pessimistic than I've heard you in a long time, and I want to know therefore, do you, like a lot of

people are now looking to China to help, including President Zelensky, is that a goer, do you think?

I do strongly believe that Ukraine has to engage with China, and it is no secret that President Trump,

for example, also believes that China has to be on board when it comes to making peace in Ukraine,

but I don't see why China would be interested in that effort under these circumstances.

Dimitra Kuleber, thank you for being with us and we'll check in with you again. Thank you so

much. Important to remember that this week marks a gruesome anniversary four years since Russia's

slaughter, rape and plunder of butcher, the village near Kiev. Coming up, a CNN exclusive with

Fidel Castro's influencer grandson, Ysandro Castro, is for making a deal with the US despite

trolling President Trump online. That story after the break.

Welcome back, energy blackouts, medicine shortages, surging food prices, and preventable deaths,

just a few of the issues plaguing Cuba, as it grapples with an energy crisis since Trump

cut it off from its Venezuelan lifeline. But this week, the US did allow a Russian flagged

oil tanker to break its own blockade, the first through in three months. The Trump administration

is trying to squeeze Cuba in order to acquire its next sculpt, which would be the toppling of

the communist regime there. But Fidel Castro's influencer grandson has also been trolling Trump online

and he explained his strategy to CNN's Patrick Opman.

Mysterious family that has held power in Cuba for nearly seven decades.

At an interview in his apartment in Havana, Sondro Castro says he is a sign of the changing

times on the communist run island. And what would your grandfather Fidel Castro say that you're

more capitalist than communist?

But all the capital is said to leave Cuba, but when we arrive for the interview,

the neighborhood Castro lives in is in a blackout. And your constant condition these days with US

oil blockade and power plants breaking down. Sondro Castro's apartment is lit by an intellectual

generator, but from his balcony, the surrounding houses are in near-told darkness.

He shows me his one bedroom, bachelor pot, how he lacks peace for the way, how his fridge is

nearly empty, except for the Cuban beer he's always drinking. I point out that the appliance is

a form that most Cubans could never hope to afford. His famous last name, Sondro Castro wants

people to know, doesn't come with any special treatment in Cuba on the edge of economic collapse.

We have to fight for all the Cuban beer, it's hard, even for Castro,

even for Castro, it's hard. It's hard because it suffers with thousands of difficulties.

But big a Castro must help you.

Cuba faces unprecedented US pressure to open politically and economically. US Secretary of State Marco

Rubio, a Cuban American, has been reaching out to Cuban officials, including members of the Castro

family. In one of his videos, Sondro Castro pretends to receive a call from Rubio, who he then

hangs up on. Rubio has said Cuban needs new leadership, and that could include Cuban

Miguel Diaz-Canel stepping down. Despite Fidel and Raul Castro's support for Diaz-Canel over many years,

Sondro Castro says he is no fan. Do you think President Diaz-Canel is doing a good job?

No, he's not doing a good job.

Because he's a weird guy, he had a lot of things he's done to us.

And today, he's not as arrogant as usual.

Cuba's leaders reject attempts to blame them for the crisis, and Sondro Castro says

officials have questioned him about his often surreal and critical postings, as well

Cuban exiles regularly attack him online, he says.

Sondro Castro says he supports Trump's calls to open the economy, if not his threats against the

island. At the end of his video, he takes a U.S. leader on a tour of Ivana. Hope from at least

one member of the Castro family that historic deal with the U.S. in opening on the island are

possible. Patrick Othman seen an Ivana.

He's still got to wonder why Trump allowed Putin to bust his blockade and allow him into the

hemisphere he claims for the United States. Coming up, he's been in the room with three American

presidents and one Iranian Shah. Former White House aide Gary Sick gives me his take on Trump's

war. People who know a lot about Iran would never have done what he has just done.

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. In his new documentary called 50 Years of

Apple, my colleague and friend Bill Weir, he's going to look at how these devices we carry every

day didn't just transform technology, but they helped reshape our entire culture.

I actually met some researchers and met a woman Emma Durden who has been studying the screen time

effects on young brains for the last few years now and it comes down just to the power of these

things. I see to my own kids the addictive qualities in it. At very young age especially,

and when that young brain is you know better than most is not equipped to process these things,

there's a cost to this. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now wherever you get your podcasts.

My next guest has seen up close the transformation of Iran and how it got to its terrible relationship

with the United States today. Gary Sik was the principal White House aide for Iran during the

late 1970s, before, during, and after the Islamic Revolution. He served in the U.S. National Security

Council under three American presidents, Ford, Carter, and Reagan, witnessing and advising on

major foreign policy decisions. He joined me here in New York to share his warnings from history

and where he sees all this heading. He's 91 years old now but still keen to give us those vital

lessons for today. Gary Sik, welcome back to our program. So you have served every president

practically in a specific era, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and particularly on this issue of Iran.

What would you be telling this current president about how to deal with this thorny subject which

is bedeviled every administration for the last nearly 50 years? Well, I think in the first place he

wouldn't hire me. He doesn't. He's not looking for expertise and that's one of the real problems

is that people who know a lot about Iran would never have done what he has just done. And I mean,

it was clearly done on Whim without a lot of thinking, without a tremendous amount of preparation

and we're seeing the consequences. I think that Trump really, he plays a tactical game. He's got

problems and he deals with them impulsively, one after another. And if something gives him a

tactical advantage, he's a deal maker. He's not a history maker. Let me ask you about Trump's

deal maker, transactional, tactical kind of guy and not a strategist. All the things that he's

been saying, which appear often to be contradictory, what do you think that public messaging says

to Americans most importantly to the Iranians at this crucial time? I think the Iranians don't trust

a single thing that they hear from him or the Americans. I mean, I think Iran's relationship

with the United States. I mean, we've been disappointed. They've disappointed us. They've done

things that we didn't want them to do and took us by surprise. And we've done the same kind of thing.

And I would say both sides look at this and think the other side is completely untrustworthy

and unworthy of even serious attention. Let's get back to the history. Now, you served

Carter Reagan forward on this particular issue, right? The revolution. President Carter,

who you served, went to Iran famously on the Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, 77 into 78,

state visit in Tehran and declared the Shah was the guarantor of an island of stability in

the Middle East. Those were his words. And eight days later, the revolution started bubbling. You

guys, you're an intelligence official. Clearly got it wrong. The cables that were going back and forth

from the embassy in Iran to Washington were like, no, no, there's no sign of revolution on the horizon.

How badly did you all disservice your government? I've spent now 40 more years looking at that

and thinking about it and considering what really went on. And I would say, unequivocally,

that this was one of the greatest intelligence failures in American history. You've got to start

with Kissinger and Nixon, who came to Iran and talked to the Shah just before all of this started.

The Shah told them, I will be happy to act as your representative in the Gulf and take care of your

interests. But don't go looking over my shoulder. If you want to know what's going on in Iran,

ask us. Ask me. And I'll tell you. And of course, he didn't know what was going on in

Iran part of the time. But more than that, he wouldn't tell us if it was really a crucial issue.

Did you meet the Shah? I met him. What impression did you have of him? Why do you think he said no?

When he was operating according to a script, he was very reliable and really quite good.

When he departed from the script, he was really uncomfortable. He didn't know what he was doing,

and he did trust his own instincts at all. Trump's apparent pivot to actually war and military

intervention, whether it's in Venezuela, whether it might be in Cuba, but whether it's in a big

way now in Iran. How does that sit with you? Because there's been no legal effort to get consensus

around going to war. War seems to be now the default action or some kind of military intervention

seems to be a default action for the United States. I think with everything we do,

we are undercutting the laws of war and basically over the past several centuries,

we've gradually been accumulating and growing laws of war about how you behave in a war,

and it doesn't keep us from going to war, but it does mean that you only do it under certain

circumstances. When there's an imminent threat, there was no imminent threat. Jimmy Carter had an

imminent threat. If he had wanted to go to war with Iran, he had an excuse. He had a reason to do it.

Trump had no such excuse. You don't act disproportionately. So if you get hit and two of your people

get killed and you wipe out a village, that's not proportional and it's against the laws of war.

And there's a whole series of things and we're breaking those laws every day.

You're 91 years old. You've had a lifetime of public service. Did you ever think that you would

see your country in this position? No. I've been around enough to know that you can't predict the

future and that it surprises you, but I would never have believed that we would find ourselves

in the position that we're in as the the rogue nation in the world. Gary Sink, thank you so much

for your unique perspective. Thank you. Great to see you again.

A troubling indictment indeed and coming up more lessons from history, a look into my archive at

the long struggle for freedom and reform and democracy in Iran and my own experience living

through the revolution there. It was at this precise moment in this room 21 years ago that I developed

the first inklings of political awareness and this is where my life changed.

Welcome back. The irony of this war is that instead of toppling the regime,

it's so far is empowering the hardliners in Iran who are cracking down using a familiar playbook,

deploying security forces to the streets and threatening mass arrests and executions.

It's just the latest chapter in the long fight over what change could look like in Iran. Back in

2000, at the high point of Iran's reform phase, I covered the hopes and dreams of the young people

there who insisted on democratic and economic freedoms. Back then, like today, there remains an

iron core of revolutionary religious loyalists and I spoke to some of them too.

Jenna, everywhere I go in Tehran, I'm an object of curiosity for these young people.

They're eager to ask questions and to tell me all about their freedom fight and I am stunned by the

symmetry. Just a generation ago, there was another youth movement, the one that sparked a revolution

forcing the shower of Iran out and bringing the Ayatollah Khomeini in.

A generation after the revolution, these students are telling me that they want everything,

real democracy, the right to have fun and even friendly relations with the United States.

For me, the young people's struggle is especially personal because I was their age when the

revolution happened. But back in 1979, I was living a carefree life, taking all the personal

freedoms for granted when I was a girl growing up in Tehran. This was my house.

The revolution records of Iran took custody of our house after my family left the country in

1980. Only recently we were able to reclaim it. This used to be our living room.

This room, for me, is kind of significant because it was here 21 years ago that my father was

sitting in that corner and I was standing here and all of a sudden he said, you know, life as we

used to know it is going to come to an end because the revolution is going to happen and it's

just going to be completely different and it was at this precise moment in this room 21 years

ago that I developed the first inklings of political awareness and this is where my life changed.

Somebody in the West looking at you with a charred eye on your face, obviously very religious,

they might be surprised to hear what you're saying about the freedoms and the reforms that you

want. Should they be surprised? No. No, they shouldn't be surprised. The fact that I wear a

hijab or some people wear a hijab should not imply that we do not want freedom, that we want

restrictions. What happens if you don't get what you want? The reform movement of President Khatami

has started and it cannot go back. How many people can the conservatives throw in jail?

They can't jail the whole population of Iran because all over the country the reforms of Mr. Khatami

have taken hold. But those reforms are running up against a wall of resistance from men like

Mova Hedee, Savoji, a member of parliament and one of the hardest of all the hardliners.

I've been talking to many, many Iranians since I've been here. I've talked to religious people,

I've talked to more secular people, I've talked to young people, to old people,

village people, city people. They say they want freedom of expression, freedom of political

expression. They want political reform and they say they've had enough of hardline conservatives

like yourself. Our people have been free since that revolution. Of course I believe

that Ms. Amanpur has spoken to a limited number of people.

So every time I asked a hardliner, a conservative, this same question, they tell me that I'm asking

and talking to the wrong people. 80% of the people of Iran voted twice in presidential elections

and in municipal elections for reform and for freedom. So are you saying that 80% of the people of

Iran don't know what they're talking about? They voted for Khatami because they hoped he could solve

the economic problems. In other words, they didn't vote for Khatami so that he would bring political

changes. To me you sound slightly out of touch. Everybody we talk to says they want freedom

and if they don't get their freedom there's going to be an explosion in Iran. There's too much

pressure building. Do you accept that? Even if the hardliners appear to be in deep denial

they face a generation that won't be denied. What I said back then stands today. When we come back

two-time Academy Award-winning actor Adrian Brody tells me about the thrill of his Broadway debut.

And finally two-time Oscar winner Adrian Brody is known for his gritty performances

in films like The Brutalist and The Pianist. But now for the first time he's treading the

boards on Broadway in the fear of 13 written by Lindsay Ferrentino. It's an extraordinary true

story in which Brody plays Nick Yaris and in May to spend more than two decades on death row

for a crime he didn't commit and who was later proven innocent. It is devastating, sometimes

darkly funny and yet also manages to be oddly life-affirming. I spoke to Brody and Ferrentino

about the project. For me as an artist or an artistic capacity to be able to explore

and help open the conversation and consider these grave issues and ailments within our society

are very important and meaningful. Lindsay wrote an incredible play, incredible work. It is

incredible and the words were so moving that they told me out of my own apprehension of doing

theater for many years. The play is on Broadway right now and you can tune into this show next week

for more of that conversation. And that is all we have time for. Don't forget you can find all of

our shows online as podcasts at CNN.com slash audio and on all other major platforms. I'm Christian

I'm on pour in New York. Thank you for watching and I'll see you again next week.

I'm Eva Longoria and I'm setting out to really experience France to save her its world

celebrated cuisine and explore the country's rich history. Eva Longoria, searching for France,

premieres April 12 on CNN and next day on the CNN app.