Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former CIA Director David Petraeus and U.S. CENTCOM Former Commander; Interview with Former Swedish Prime Minister and European Council on Foreign Relations Co-Chair Carl Bildt; Interview with CDC Former Medical Epidemiologist Fiona Havers. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired June 25, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The ceasefire between Iran and Israel appears to be holding as NATO leaders agree to Trump's massive hike in defense spending. Former CIA director
David Petraeus assesses what this means for the Middle East and for global security.
And Sweden's former Prime Minister Carl Bildt looks at NATO's political challenges in the Trump era.
And then, former senior CDC official Dr. Fiona Havers tells Michel Martin why she quit over Robert Kennedy Jr.'s risky approach to vaccine policy.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiana Amanpour in London.
The NATO Summit has ended with a changed Donald Trump, at least that's what he says, at least for now. After years of denigrating allies and calling
them freeloaders, this is how the president says he feels at the moment after they had all huddled to discuss their greatest challenges and
dangers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: When I came here, I came here because it was something I'm supposed to be doing, but I left here a little bit
differently. They need the United States. And without the United States, it's not going to be the same. I left here saying that these people really
love their countries. It's not rip-off. And we are here to help them protect their country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, Trump did though get them to massively increase their own defense spending from a target of 2 percent GDP to 5 percent in another 10
years. While this summit was tailored to appease him and please him, a great deal of his press conference was devoted to the success of his
strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Here's how Trump describes that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: As you know, last weekend, the United States successfully carried out a massive precision strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, and
it was very, very successful. It was called obliteration. No other military on Earth could have done it. And now, this incredible exercise of American
strength has paved the way for peace for the historic ceasefire agreement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, after a furious back and forth over a leaked Pentagon report suggesting the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program by
month, Trump said that it was preliminary and inconclusive. Then he got another report from Israel's Atomic Energy Commission saying the U.S.
attack on Fordow, quote, "destroyed" the site's critical infrastructure. Iran itself also said its facilities were badly damaged.
David Petraeus served as commander of CENTCOM and director of the CIA, and he's joining me now from California. General Petraeus, how are you? Welcome
to the program.
DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR AND FORMER COMMANDER, U.S. CENTCOM: Good to be with you.
AMANPOUR: I want to first ask you about some, you know, kind of interesting tone shift from President Trump at NATO before we get right
into the Iran thing. You may have heard, but he said, I came here because I had to, but I leave feeling differently. All these leaders, they love their
countries. They're not -- I think he said, they're not ripping us off and we're going to help protect their countries. Then he said on Article 5,
which caused some controversy as he appeared to, you know, explicitly endorse it before, he said, we are with them all the way. What do you make
of this? It's probably good news for everybody if you think it'll last.
PETRAEUS: I think it's very encouraging. It's wonderful news. You know, he's achieved something that no other president has ever achieved even
though all of those repeatedly chastised their counterparts and countries for not doing all they should for the defense of their own continent.
So, this is really encouraging. I think the leadership of Mark Rutte as the secretary general has been very impressive following on the great
leadership of his predecessor, the novel idea to get to 3.5 percent of GDP on defense, but then another 1.5 unrelated investments in roads, bridges,
all the other infrastructure that is so necessary for pushing forces out to Eastern Europe. And then, the reaffirmation of Article 5.
[13:05:00]
But I'd note the most important affirmation of Article 5, again, the collective self-defense component of the North Atlantic Treaty is that we
have boots on the ground in countries that are contiguous to Russia or in Eastern Europe. And that's really what matters. As long as they are there,
that presence speaks far more about our involvement right away if Russia were to ever invade one of the NATO countries in the wake of whatever
happens in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you then, you know, people have called -- talked about the madman theory and often applied it to Donald Trump. They did when, for
instance, he sought to have that summit and he did with the North Korean leader. Didn't come to anything, but nonetheless. Do you think all of this,
I mean, I'm just going to say madman theory and action over the last two weeks actually could be a dramatic success?
PETRAEUS: I do actually. And again, there's a madman theory that, you know, you don't want to get in a fight with a madman. But then, if you get
into a crisis situation -- so this is pre-crisis deterrence, you will shrink from, again, creating the crisis with a madman because you're not
sure what he will do. The problem is if you get into a crisis with a madman, you might do something sooner than you would otherwise for fear
that he would.
This is more the angry man theory. And I think he has done this very effectively. He has expressed his displeasure repeatedly. They have clearly
taken it very seriously. There's been a lot of soul searching in Europe. I've been in Europe many, many times this year. They're very concerned
about his response, and they have taken action as a result, and that is great to see.
So, however, we got to this juncture, having been a NATO guy as a one-star, three-star, four-star, and earlier, it's wonderful to see our European
allies stepping up in the way that they have, taking much more responsibility, particularly in the case of Germany, which is likely to
spend an additional 700 billion to a trillion euros just in the years that lie ahead. And obviously, that's the biggest economy in Europe, so that
matters even more.
AMANPOUR: And what about over Iran, because that was also something that was, you know, telegraphed in the angry or madman manner?
PETRAEUS: Well, if you're talking about the Iranian response, I mean, that was -- I think the White House got it right when they said it was a
theatrical response. Iran warned Qatar. Qatar actually closed their airspace in advance. We all had, obviously all of the air and ballistic
missile defenses and radars all pointing in the right direction. A symbolic number of missiles was launched the same as the bombs that we dropped. And
predictably, they were all knocked down and didn't cause no casualties to American forces.
You know, what Iran had to do is it had to do something to save face, but it didn't want to do so much that they lost their head, that we actually
responded because of what they did. And that was tricky, but it seems to me that they threaded the needle. And that then gave the president the
opportunity essentially to declare cease fire. President -- or Prime Minister Netanyahu had to accept that, he had, in fact, to be fair,
announced prior to that, that Israel was close to achieving its objectives. And subsequently, that's what he said.
And then Iran, in a way probably, taking a deep breath, probably relieved to have this because Israel could have continued to pound them from the
air, given that the Iranian air and ballistic missile defenses have been positively destroyed. They had air supremacy, not just air superiority.
AMANPOUR: I want to get to what happens, quote/unquote, "the day after." But first I want to ask you, because you've obviously been, you know, aware
of this all day, this furious route over how well the strikes actually did. Trump has said it was, you know, early and preliminary thing that was
leaked from the Pentagon. Then there was that one that came from the Israeli Atomic Energy saying that they had, you know, destroyed the site's
critical infrastructure at Fordow. Trump basically still says it's obliterated. They can't use it. He thinks the hundreds of kilograms of
enriched uranium is probably still down there and buried in cement.
You are a former CIA and you're a former military commander. What do you think about this? I want to -- in a minute, I'm going to play what Ehud
Barak told me about the possibility of destroying all of this. But what do you make of this early, you know, arguments over how good or bad the
strikes were?
PETRAEUS: Well, first and foremost, bomb damage assessment, the BDA process takes time, and you have to mine all possible sources of
intelligence to shape a picture. And it's still early on, and I think President Trump acknowledged that. Some of his own officials have raised
doubts about was all the highly enriched uranium in the facilities we bombed? Were all the centrifuge is there, or were some of them carted away?
Is there a secret site?
[13:10:00]
There's a lot of questions that linger after this, and it will take time to determine what the real answer is. What I would say is that the operations
that Israel carried out were absolutely extraordinary. Incredible competence. The fact that they lost not a single plane or pilot or crew or
whatever. I mean, they lost a couple of drones along the way, I think, but that was about it. And then the American operation was equally masterful.
Again, I was the commander of Central Command when we developed the plan to destroy the entire nuclear component, all of the facilities of Iran. We
actually rehearsed it one time in the United States. What was done here was very, very impressive. 125 aircraft of all different types to enable this
and it appears to be very, very impressive results.
That said, no one knows, I don't think really what is inside Fordow at this point. In time, you can speculate that dropping 12 massive ordinance
penetrators the vibration alone would heavily damage the centrifuges. We don't know if all of the highly enriched uranium has been destroyed or if
it can be even got to and so forth.
I tend to think that this has set the program back massively. You know, it's hard to measure whether that's many years or what have you. But this
is an enormously successful operation. The question is, is there HEU that is out there somewhere else? Only a turn of the enrichment process away
from weapons grade. Are there centrifuges out there in a position that could do that? We will find out.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, that's the important --
PETRAEUS: But keep in mind that even --
AMANPOUR: Yes. I just want to stop you for a second because that's the important question I want to ask you. HEU, highly enriched uranium. But
here is another military commander and defense minister and prime minister, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who told me before the U.S.
entered and while the Israelis were hitting what he thought would be the optimum result out of this. Let me just play this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EHUD BARAK, FORMER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: It's not a secret that Israel alone cannot delay the nuclear program of Iran by a significant time
period. Probably several weeks, probably a month. But even the U.S. cannot delay them by more than few months.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I found that interesting. He said even the U.S. can't delay it by more than a few months. We've just discussed this. But what I want to
know is, is it relevant? Now, I ask you this because Donald Trump was saying it doesn't matter. They have been destroyed. They know that -- or
whatever the word he used, they know that this war could start again. And furthermore, you know, potentially they'll come to an agreement and say
that they're not going to do this anymore.
So, what do you think is the optimum for the day after? What do you think should happen next?
PETRAEUS: Well, the optimum -- and by the way, I know Hay Ehud Barak well. Had great relations with him when he was the minister of defense, trying to
get us to do this operation, I might add, all the way back at that time. And I'm not going to quibble whether it's a few months, a few years,
whatever it may be. It depends, again, where -- is there any remaining HEU, are there any remaining centrifuges?
But what's really relevant here is I'm sure if they are identified and found. Israel will bomb them if that's necessary. This is not necessarily
over. Israel has changed its strategic approach since 10/7 dramatically. They will never again allow a threat to be built up on their -- not just on
their borders, but all the way in the region, especially if it's a regime like this that constantly calls for death to Jews and death to Americans.
What's the optimum? The optimum is that Iran recognizes what a position of weakness it is in. It recognizes the vulnerabilities it has right now. It
has no air and ballistic missile defenses left and they're not going to be able to replace them anytime soon. Russia doesn't have any despair. This
was a Russian system destroyed.
So, Iran says, OK, we will give up our entire nuclear program and we will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to come in and inspect, to
oversee the process of dismantling, to validate and verify it, and to go anywhere at any time that they want to ensure that there's nothing being
hidden somewhere. That's the optimum.
Now, their history of negotiation, as you know, well, Christiane, is to obfuscate and delay and temporize and all the rest. So, we'll see if they
have the sense to do this. I suspect that may be difficult for them. They've spent billions and billions of dollars on this quixotic effort,
which has now been set back very, very substantially with all of the main facilities, at the very least, very heavily damaged, if not actually fully
destroyed.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: And do you think it could -- there could be the reverse, that they have saved some centrifuges. They have saved some of the enriched
uranium, highly enriched uranium, and a program could continue underground? I mean, I know you've said if it happens, Israel could, you know, see it
and all the rest of it. But look, North Korea did it. North Korea did it. And look where we are today.
PETRAEUS: I think we're much less sensitive to what North Korea was doing. It was a bit of a surprise. This would not be a surprise. I'm confident
that Mossad, that Israeli intelligence, U.S. intelligence, would identify if there are residual HEU stockpiles and centrifuges to enrich them to
weapons grade and then try to craft weapons to actual nuclear device, and they will destroy it.
I think their strategic approach is dramatically different, and I'm not sure we all realize just how significant that is.
AMANPOUR: Let me just turn to the other incredibly important issue, and that is Russia's invasion and continued pounding of Ukraine. President
Trump expressed frustration with Vladimir Putin. And at the same time though, NATO, which had, as its strategy, you know, a new Russian threat,
apparently that's been replaced. It was supposed to be adopted at the summit, but it was scrapped at Washington's insistence. So, that -- I don't
know why that would be scrapped from Washington.
But at the same time, President Trump did meet with President Zelenskyy. Both said it was a good meeting. And there was some word that maybe
President Trump would continue sending Patriot at defense missiles. What do you think and what is the worst-case scenario that could come out of this
moment for Ukraine?
PETRAEUS: Well, let me talk about what should be done, and that is that all of the NATO allies and other Western countries that share the values
and ideals that Ukraine is fighting for, all of them, including the U.S., should do everything we can, even more than we have to try to enable
Ukraine to change the dynamics on the battlefield, to get Russia and Putin to realize that he cannot achieve even incremental gains even at the
extraordinary costs that they have been taking.
You know, a million killed and wounded. It's almost hard to even fathom, to appreciate. That's what should be done. More sanctions. Europeans should
finally seize the frozen $300 billion of Russian reserves, give it to Ukraine to enable them to make more drones and keep their electrical
infrastructure working and so forth. And certainly, there should be the provision of interceptors by the United States.
It's one of the areas of real concern with individuals that I've talked to who are engaged with the support to Ukraine from the U.S. and from the
entire coalition. So, that's, I think, what should happen. And until that happens, you're not going to see Vladimir Putin change from his maximal
goals, which are to topple Zelenskyy and replace him with a pro-Russian figure, to get more control of more territory and to demilitarize Ukraine,
none of which can be acceptable to Ukraine, and none of which should be acceptable to any of us in NATO, much less elsewhere in the world. You
cannot reward this kind of naked aggression.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, that's -- that really is a question for the president because he seems to be very, you know, vacillating on this, on his
instincts of how to fix it and how to talk to Vladimir Putin. But -- and we can't let you go, especially after this bombing of Iran. You know, you were
a commander during the Iraq war that ended up being a debacle. As you all - - as we all know, based on, you know --
PETRAEUS: I disagree with you on that actually.
AMANPOUR: OK, fine. All right. All right. But let me ask you, let me ask you, because --
PETRAEUS: We left in a very good position in late 2011.
AMANPOUR: OK. But --
PETRAEUS: -- all-time low (INAUDIBLE) themselves.
AMANPOUR: OK. The fracturing, the terrorism, the insurgency, all of that. I just wonder whether you thought that if Israel had continued in Iran,
whether that could have happened as well, a disintegrated country, which was the case in Iraq for several years after the war, as you will admit.
PETRAEUS: Well, until we did the surge and then we drove violence down by 90 percent --
AMANPOUR: That took a long time.
PETRAEUS: -- further.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
PETRAEUS: It did. There's no question. We had the big ideas wrong for a period and we also did some very disastrous early mistakes firing the
entire military and (INAUDIBLE) and reconciliation process. No dispute there. But this is the question here is the regime change question.
[13:20:00]
First, I find it very unlikely that the opposition, which might be as much as 80 percent of the population, could ever find a leader and organization
with enough guns to overthrow this very formidable regime, as you know.
Second, if there is regime change, then it would come from within. There's a lot of talk about scheming going on behind the scenes. This 86 or 87-
year-old supreme leader and so forth. Is he providing the leadership that we need? Some could actually be slightly pragmatic. But the fact is I think
it's probably unlikely to see some kind of Persian Spring here that's going to usher in a Jeffersonian Democrat on a white horse that totally
transforms the country in the way we would like.
AMANPOUR: OK.
PETRAEUS: It would be nice if we're a bit more pragmatic and a bit less threatening.
AMANPOUR: General Petraeus, thank you so much indeed for being with us. And stay with us because we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, we've discussed how NATO leaders have agreed to increase their defense spending to 5 percent by 2035, a move President Trump has
called a monumental win for the United States. While there was little formal discussion though of Russia's war in Ukraine, Trump did meet with
President Zelenskyy on the sidelines and afterwards both called it a good meeting with the Ukrainian leader writing on X that they discussed how to
achieve a ceasefire and real peace. By the way, no press or cameras were allowed in.
At his press conference later though, Trump fired a frustrated dart at Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I know one thing he'd like to settle. He'd like to get out of this thing. It's a mess for him. He called the other day. He said, can I help
you with Iran? I said, no, you can help me with Russia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ukraine has suffered some of the most aggressive Russian bombardments in recent weeks, and while Trump says he's considering making
Patriot missile systems available, lasting U.S. support remains unclear.
Now, Carl Bildt is former prime minister of Sweden and current co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations. He's joining me from Croatia.
Welcome back to the program.
CARL BILDT, FORMER SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER AND CO-CHAIR, EUROPEAN COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Can I start by asking you what you think of essentially the words President Trump said about the alliance? How he came thinking one
thing, left feeling differently, and how he understands that the leaders are not trying to rip off the U.S., trying to defend themselves and the
U.S. would help them protect themselves?
BILDT: Well, in that particular case, it was of course evidently rather good meeting because the fear when they were planning this particular NATO
Summite, it was to avoid a catastrophe. So, it was all about sort of being happy. So, that -- but making certain that Trump was happy. And that
evidently succeeded. And that's a good thing. That NATO did not end with a crisis meeting of the sort, that very many fear. So, a plus in that
particular respect, no question.
AMANPOUR: And on Article 5, he said, we're all in or something like that. I haven't got the exact quote right now. But, yes. So, is that -- because
there was a lot of stress, Carl Bildt, over years, especially, you know, in the interim period, you know, seeing that Trump was coming back. What would
that do to NATO? Would this be the end of NATO? Do you think that now has been put to rest?
BILDT: Not necessarily. I mean, what's going to be critical if anything happens? What happens in that particular situation.
[13:25:00]
If there is a Russian threat to -- now we have the big Russian threat to Ukraine, which I think should be the pure focus of either NATO these days,
but say that there's a threat to one of the NATO countries, then I think the exact circumstances of that, and how Putin maneuvers with Trump will
decide very much what happens.
But of course, it is good that he said what he said, because that could be a starting point for dealing with actual situation, but there's still an
element, to put it very mildly, of unpredictability to Donald Trump, which is somewhat unsettling.
AMANPOUR: Let's just talk again about the sort of the atmosphere around the summit. So, there was a lot of attempt to appease Trump, to please
Trump. Even Marco Rubio, his own secretary of state, called it the Trump Summit. And as you know, Trump posted what, I don't know, maybe it was
private messages from the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to him, praising him for the Iran situation. I mean, in very flattering language.
And you then wrote on X, flattery is evidently the new bond of the Atlantic Alliance. I guess it replaced the more outdated concepts of common values
and common threat perceptions. Do you worry about that or is it just smart politics for all these leaders to not want to anger Trump? You remember
there was -- you know, in his first term, there was a summit that nearly crashed and burned. This is -- they've got his number and this is how they
behave, and they get him to do things that they want him to do.
BILDT: No. Well, I mean, it isn't smart policy to a certain extent. We shouldn't overdo it. I mean, we have to be serious on these particular
things. I mean, you don't run the -- rule the world with flat tree. And I would, of course, have liked NATO to focus somewhat more on what actually
should be done to come to the Russian threat to Ukraine, what should have been done to increase support for Ukraine, both American support, which
seems to be declining, if I talk about military and financial support and what needs to be done in order to beef up the European support.
Because for all of the rhetoric about that are doing things for defense of Europe, fine, excellent, good, 3.5 in 10 years' time, but everything's
going to be decided by what happens with Ukraine in the next few years, and that is where the attention should be, and that's where Mr. Trump has been,
to put it in diplomatic terms, somewhat less than impressive.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Now, you said 3.5, but it's actually five. It's gone up to 5 percent in 10 years. No?
BILDT: Well --
AMANPOUR: It's all difficult.
BILDT: -- I mean, it is 3.5 in defense spending.
AMANPOUR: OK.
BILDT: In military spending to be compared with the two or whatever we have these days. Then they -- in order to please President Trump de facto,
they adopted his 5 percent, which he talked about when he got elected. And they said there are quite a number of other things that you do in society
that is good for sort of military, mobility, and resilience or whatever. But that's going to be way definition of existing public expenditure de
facto.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
BILDT: So, we talk about 3.5. That's good. That is essential. Will they deliver? It remains to be seen. But no question that is what is needed.
AMANPOUR: Already Spain is saying, I can't do the five. But anyway, let me ask you this, you talked about, and I know that you and Europeans want
there to be serious focus on the Russia threat and on what's happening in Ukraine right now. As I asked General Petraeus the -- you know, the
meetings did not put, you know, the sort of Russia threat center of their, you know, paperwork and all the rest of it because Trump might want to
negotiate with Russia and they didn't want to, again, anger Trump.
Do you think that -- is that OK? Is that -- does that weaken NATO's, I don't know, determination to counter Russia, or is it just, you know,
wording for the summit?
BILDT: I think clear language would've been better, obviously. And I note that Russia and the long-term threat that Russia might post to European
security is mentioned in the communique. It wasn't there in the beginning. The Americans wanted to have nothing on Russia whatsoever. And I really
failed to understand this tendency of the Trump administration.
I mean, they didn't want to call it an invasion. They didn't call what to call it aggression. They voted with Russia against the European Union on
Ukraine and the United Nations. And they did all of this in order to say -- because they said we'd need to negotiate with Mr. Putin. And for that they
got absolutely nothing in return from Mr. Putin. He refused to ceasefire and he has intensified the bombardment of Kyiv and the Ukraine cities.
So, all this soft peddling on language and soft peddling on Russia has been producing absolutely nothing in terms of result.
AMANPOUR: Even Trump expressed with frustration, as you heard. But yes, he --
BILDT: (INAUDIBLE) frustration policy.
AMANPOUR: No.
BILDT: Frustration is (INAUDIBLE).
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: Yes. I hear you. Yesterday at the summit I spoke to the Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, and I asked him about this issue, U.S. support
for Ukraine. Here's a little of our conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: If the United States walks away, don't you think Russia will win?
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: No. The short answer is no.
AMANPOUR: Really.
CARNEY: I don't think --
AMANPOUR: Aan you make up for the weapons that --
CARNEY: Well, we can't fully make up, but we can -- first off, I don't think the U.S. is going to, quote, "walk away."
AMANPOUR: Are you going to try to persuade Trump to keep supporting Ukraine militarily?
CARNEY: Yes. I mean --
AMANPOUR: Militarily.
CARNEY: Yes, yes. Absolutely. This is about rule of law. It's about territorial integrity. It's about support for democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Your reaction? That's a pretty strong comment from the prime minister.
BILDT: No, I think he is essentially correct. I don't think the United States is going to disappear completely. But I think it's realistic to
anticipate that there will be reduction in U.S. military presence in Europe. I don't see any prospect of the Americans continuing the military
and the financial support of Ukraine that have been given. I don't see any sign of them agreeing to further sanctions so far.
If President Trump is frustrated with President Trump, fine -- with President Putin, sorry, fine. But it needs to be translated into policy.
And so, far, we have - to be quite honest, we've seen President Putin being fairly successful in fending off President Trump and in bending his
policies and adjusting his policies to what have suited more the Russian agenda of continuing the war instead of a ceasefire.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, because you are in Croatia right now, and you were there during the Bosnia War and you were high representative for
Bosnia after the war. And you know that on European soil there was a terrible aggression, Serbs against the Bosnians. The first one. Obviously,
Ukraine is a much bigger, you know, target.
But even now, 30 years later and 30 years since Srebrenica, you can see the agitation, the political agitation that's coming from Serbia through the
Bosnian-Serb Republic that you all created in order to stop the war. Do you see parallels right now between, you know, the politics of Bosnia that kept
this frozen conflict, if you like, and what's being talked about regarding Russia and Ukraine?
BILDT: Not really, Christiane. I mean, what happened in the Balkans, Bosnia, and elsewhere during a fairly prolonged period was the dissolution
of Yugoslavia. It was a mosaic of cultures and ethnicities and peoples that have been building up or really centuries. And then, in the middle of that,
we have aggressive communism and aggressive nationalists and aggressive, as you said, Serb, but others, an exceedingly complicated situation.
And what we see today is, of course, that building peace and making that state, but that takes a very long time, a very diligent diplomacy of
different sorts. But the Russian situation is completely different. I mean, that is sort of clear-cut aggression. I mean, the only similarity if we
take European similarities is Hitler attacking Poland in September of 1939? I mean, that's the only thing of that sort that we've seen trying to get
rid of Poland because he didn't like Poland.
And here, we have Mr. Putin invading Ukraine because he doesn't like the existence of an independent Ukraine. So, they are very, very different
situations.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you about the Iran strikes? I know you tweeted and posted that, you know, you thought there was an amount of -- you were
quite outspoken amount of, I think, hypocrisy in the wording and the decision to strike. But I just want to ask you about the politics and the
day after, because Trump implied that sanctions, you know, might be alleviated. He basically said, why shouldn't China buy oil from Iran?
Because Iran needs to -- you know, to rebuild its country. Then he said that they -- you know, U.S. and Iranian negotiators would meet again next
week. How do you read through all of that and what do you think is the best outcome from this possibly?
BILDT: Well, at the end of the day, but that's going to take some time. You need some sort of political accommodation, some sort of political
settlement or whatever you call it. I mean, we had the JCPOA, which could have become something. We had a negotiation in the beginning of this year,
which started off as, could have been something with positive noises, birth from the U.S. and the Iranian side. And that was blown up. But now we are
in a new situation.
And very much it's got to be dependent upon what happens, as you pointed out in your discussion with General Petraeus, what happens in Iran. Will
they say that we were born by two powers that have nuclear weapons, but no one bombed Pyongyang and draws some conclusions from that? Or will they say
we are born but we are -- really don't have much an option and we seek some sort of accommodation.
[13:35:00]
And with America and with Israel, except that, I think there's a lot of very careful and complicated diplomacy that is needed in order to see where
this ends up.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Carl Bildt, as always, thank you so much for being with us. And coming up after the break, a senior CDC official tells us why she's
quit after the controversial health secretary dismissed an expert panel of vaccine advisers.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And now, in the United States, the new and controversial CDC vaccine panel held its first meeting today. Health Secretary RFK Jr. had
axed the nation's decades old vaccine advisory panel after telling Congress during his nomination that he never would. And this prompted our next guest
to up and quit the CDC. Dr. Fiona Havers led the agency's hospitalization network for COVID, RSV, and the flu. And at a time when vaccine uptake
rates are falling nationwide, Havers says that lives now are being put at risk. She speaks to Michel Martin about the stakes for the future of
America's health.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Dr. Fiona Havers, thanks so much for joining us.
DR. FIONA HAVERS, FORMER MEDICAL EPIDEMIOLOGIST, CDC: Thank you very much for having me on the show.
MARTIN: Dr. Havers, one of the reasons we came to you are a noted authority in your field. I'll just sort of establish that. And your field
has become newly prominent in recent years, as I think we all know because of the COVID vaccine, you know, pandemic. And you announced your
resignation just ahead of a -- what was scheduled a major CDC vaccine advisory meeting. And that's not an easy thing to do. So, could you just
walk us through the days or the moments that kind of led you to that decision?
DR. HAVERS: Sure. So, I resigned my position at CDC basically to protest RFK Jr.'s interference in the CDC vaccine policy process. And there were a
number of events that led up to this, to my decision to resign.
I think in general, CDC has had a really hard time in this administration for the last six months. You know, this administration has basically taken
a sledgehammer to the agency and to public health. So, it was on that background that these events started happening that really affected the
space where I work in, which is vaccine preventable diseases.
And what I saw happening was RFK Jr. was now using the levers of government power to potentially block access to life-saving vaccines for Americans.
And specifically, for me it really started I think on May 20th when the FDA, Makary, the political appointee, who's now heading the FDA and Vinayak
Prasad released a video and editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine called an Evidence-Based Approach to COVID-19 vaccination.
In there they sort of released a framework that was basically indicating that COVID vaccines were going to be paired back for the American people.
And some of that is OK. I mean, CDC was sort of moving in that direction for certain groups. But in the YouTube video he put up Vinayak Prasad,
who's talking about evidence-based medicine, put up data from the system that I ran. It's called COVID-Net.
[13:40:00]
And put up hospitalization rates for zero to four year olds as -- but -- so, he was using evidence from the system that I oversaw, but he was using
it badly. Because within that age group, there's a lot of nuance that's actually really important for actually having true science-based evidence-
based policy.
And so, that was problematic, but it was not nearly as problematic as what happened the following week when RFK Jr. went on X and announced that CDC
recommendations were changing for COVID vaccines. Nobody from CDC who does COVID vaccine policy was involved in that decision or that announcement.
And what he announced and the changes they had announced completely undercut the very rigorous, very science-based like process that CDC has
from making official changes to the CDC recommendations.
And that was just -- I mean, we were all appalled, frankly. And I nearly quit that week. But then, there was some pushback from within CDC
leadership. I think. I wasn't part of those conversations directly. And what ended up being officially on this schedule wasn't as bad is what RFK
Jr. announced and it sort of preserved access to vaccines for more children.
MARTIN: What's an analogy that might make sense to somebody who hasn't really thought about it? Can you think of an analogy or something that
might make sense to people?
DR. HAVERS: I think that he just blew up the entire process. Every type of vaccine has its own work group. These are outside experts who are vetted
for conflicts of interest, and they meet behind the scenes for hours, often for two hours every week, and they do a deep dive into the evidence. After
the work groups have finished their work and have a recommendation, they take it to the public -- at the public meeting, they present it in a very
transparent way to the advisory committee.
At those public meetings, which happen three times a year, the evidence upon which any vaccine recommendation change is based is viewed publicly
and the ACIP members vote on it. Then the CDC director just usually just signs off like that week, a week or two later and becomes official CDC
policy.
So, they -- by him just announcing CDC was changing recommendations on X without talking to CDC, bypass that entire transparent evidence-based
policy.
MARTIN: In your resignation e-mail to colleagues, you wrote that you, quote, "no longer have confidence that these data will be used objectively
or evaluated with appropriate scientific rigor to make evidence-based vaccine policy decisions." It's pretty straightforward. But what I'm
hearing from you is this is like four-alarm fire to you. This is not, gee, I don't think you know that they're really listening to me. I think what
you're saying is this is four-alarm fire time. That you have no idea who's actually influencing these decisions. You have no idea what information is
informing these decisions. And if you don't mind my saying, this is not scientific language, you're really scared. You're scared about what's going
to happen.
DR. HAVERS: Well, I am really scared. I honestly, really am. And I will say that, as I mentioned, I didn't quit at that moment when he made the
announcement on X, that CDC was changing it. The moment I knew I had to resign was when my colleague texted me and said, he just announced, he
fired the entire committee. That was RFK Jr. going nuclear on CDC, and on this entire vaccine policy process.
And it was -- at that moment I felt completely gutted. Honestly. I was like, I was done. Like I knew that I could not stay. And I -- at that
point, I just felt like, you know, whoever he's putting in is not going to take the science seriously. They're not going to use the evidence that we
spend our careers putting -- collecting, and putting together for -- to make informed decisions. And I did not feel like, as a scientist, as a
physician, that, for my own personal integrity, that I could stay and like legitimize that process by presenting to this committee.
MARTIN: He fired all 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory panel. And on June 9th when he announced this, he said, today we are prioritizing the
restoration of public trust above any specific pro or anti-vaccine agenda. How do you hear that framing?
DR. HAVERS: I mean, first of all, RFK Jr. has been -- wanted the leading figures for decades undermining public trust in this process, in this very
rigorous, very transparent process. I'll also say, I mean, me personally, I have never had any times ties to the vaccine industry. I have no conflicts
of interest here. I'm a physician. I've seen people die of vaccine preventable diseases. That is what motivates me, like, helping to prevent
that and helping to prevent people dying unnecessarily is really my motivation.
[13:45:00]
And I also know many of the members who are -- the CIP that were fired personally as well, and I think they are people of integrity. Their
conflicts of interest are very much vetted. And for him to just keep saying that CDC is conflicted, this group is conflicted and they have other
interests other than the, you know, public health good is really hard to hear, especially when he's been one of the main voices for undermining
public trust in vaccines and in CDC.
MARTIN: And I can say that there has other reporting that indicates that some of the instances that he cited of so-called conflicts of interest were
clerical errors or, you know, coding errors and filling out the forms. There is ample evidence that there -- that, as you said, the members of
this panel have been vetted for conflicts.
DR. HAVERS: I mean, I will say I was a work group lead for -- I was the ACIP work group lead for pertussis vaccines before the pandemic. And I've
been on many meetings where work group members have had to recuse themselves or be removed from the work group because they got a new grant
and they didn't want to have any appearance of conflict. I have seen ACIP members resign because of similar things where they have -- so something --
some research coming in so that they're no longer being viewed as completely objective.
So, they're -- and it's such a rigorous process. And CDC has been very careful to make this even more of a rigorous and transparent process over
the last two decades because we understand that it's really important for the public to be able to trust what CDC says.
MARTIN: And by contrast, some of the new appointees that Secretary Kennedy have -- has announced have a track record of vaccine skepticism. Does this
speak to some larger battle that seems to be sort of playing out here? I'm just kind of wondering what's the origin of it? Is it the idea that
credentials, as we have understood them, relevant experience of -- as we have understood, it earned authority as we have understood it is no longer
relevant in the current era and something else is?
DR. HAVERS: I mean, I do think that there is a larger conversation going on in America about the role of expertise in specific areas. But I would
say, to bring it back to the vaccine policy part, is that, you know, RFK Jr. has been -- you know, his positions on vaccines are well known, but now
what he's doing is potentially affecting insurance coverage and access to vaccines for Americans.
And the reason why this process is so important and why the CDC immunization schedule matters is because if it is officially on the CDC
schedule, insurance by law is required to cover it. So, if he's just making changes unilaterally or he has these other people now controlling this
process, if they remove -- if they change the recommendations and remove vaccines, people will not be able to get their vaccines covered by
insurance even if they want to get them.
And the other part of it is it ACIP is critical because it determines what's on the Vaccine for Children's -- in the Vaccine for Children's
program, which is a federal program that provides free vaccines to millions of children across the country. And now, if they are starting to -- if
ACIP, the people that are currently now newly on the committee start restricting what vaccines are recommended to go in that program, children
are going to lose access to lifesaving vaccines.
MARTIN: So, what I think I hear you saying is, even if Secretary Kennedy says that he's not trying to push the country or parents specifically in
one direction or another, that effectively, the results are pushing them in one direction for another because people might not be able to get insurance
coverage for vaccines that they consider to be critical, that the science indicates are critical and that people who are under-resourced may not have
access, even if they can -- if they can't pay out of pocket, they're not going to have access is --
DR. HAVERS: No, exactly. And the other thing is this, it's going to get way more confusing for healthcare providers, for patients if the CDC
immunization schedule is no longer reliable and really based on science, because also part of the process, one important part of the process that I
didn't mention is that all the academic or professional societies weigh in and usually endorse changes to the CDC schedule, like the American Academy
of Pediatrics, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Physicians.
And so, you know, I've been in clinic where I have a patient sitting in front of me and I need to know, does this patient need a meningococcal
vaccine? And I -- you know, all providers basically go to the CDC immunization schedule for like a quick reference. And I know that that's
reliable information. And if that changes, it's going to be a lot harder for clinicians and for patients to know what should -- what they should
get. And then, if they want to get a vaccine and the doctor thinks they should get it, they may not have access to it.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: Are there any diseases or any particular populations that you're particularly concerned about?
DR. HAVERS: I mean, I think that this is a five-alarm fire, but like two children have died of measles since RFK took over as HHS secretary. And I
know that me and all the pediatricians I know are worried about more measles outbreaks, more deaths in children from measles. Pertussis or
whooping cough has also been on the increase. And I worked on pertussis for a while at CDC also, and we will see more babies die of pertussis if this
happens.
The other thing that a population I'm -- my background is in internal medicine and infectious diseases. So, I take care of a lot of older adults.
But influenza and COVID-19 results in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every single year, and most of them are older adults.
And I do think that if there is increased confusion about the value or which -- for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines in older adults, or if there's
decreased access and older adults can't get their flu shot, or can't get their COVID shot, we will see a large increase in serious illness and
deaths in the older adult population.
So, I think -- I mean, if this keeps going away the way it's going, I mean it, the situation can get really bad and parents are going to have to worry
about diseases that nobody has thought about in decades or -- I mean, it's really very scary.
MARTIN: You know, according to the National Cancer Institute, just 57.3 percent of adolescents age 13 to 15 were fully vaccinated against HPV, this
is in 2023, which is well below the 80 percent target set by the Department of Health and Human Services as part of its national public health goals
for the decade. And the reason I raise that is that this predates Secretary Kennedy taking office. It predates the Trump administration coming into
private.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, it seems to me that there's this skepticism was brewing before they arrived at these agencies, and I just wondered if
you have a theory about why that is.
DR. HAVERS: I mean, vaccine skepticism has been increasing for the last several decades, and it's something that people at CDC are very well aware
of. And I think, you know, RFK Jr. has been one of the loudest voices to fueling that. And now, he's in a position of government power and using
that to even further spread even further more misinformation.
You mentioned the HPV vaccine, and this is not an area of expertise that I have, but I do know that it's one of the huge public health wins. This is a
vaccine that prevents cervical cancer. And if girls don't get vaccinated during a certain window of opportunity, that puts them potentially at a
lifetime risk of cervical cancer that would be eliminated had they been vaccinated.
And to see vaccination rates drop for a safe and effective vaccine can potentially prevent like your daughter dying from cancer later, like it
really bothers me that kind of misinformation is out there, because it is costing lives.
MARTIN: Dr. Fiona Havers, thank you so much for speaking with us.
DR. HAVERS: Thank you very much for having me. Appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, I still believe in spite of everything that people are truly good at heart. These are the powerful words of Anne Frank, whose
world-famous diary was published on this day in 1947. Two years following her death at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp at only 15 years old.
Now, her firsthand testimony is one of the most read books, which chronicles her experience of hiding in the secret annex of a house in
Amsterdam.
Another Jewish teenager who was forced into hiding when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands is Selma van de Perre, who became a resistance fighter and
a Holocaust survivor. I sat down with Selma here in London in 2021. She was nearly 99 years old there, and I heard her story of hope and perseverance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You said that to survive you had to maintain hope.
SELMA VAN DE PERRE, WWII RESISTANCE FIGHTER: Yes. So, you try to do your best to survive, which was difficult at sometimes. I was beaten once
unconscious when I couldn't get off the loo (ph) because my tummy was always upset, you see. And because the food and the drinks we got was
terrible or hardly anything.
AMANPOUR: When you came out, you realized eventually that your mother had not survived, your father had not, and nor had your younger sister. Two
older brothers had, and they had come here to England. How did you reconcile? How did you process their loss?
VAN DE PERRE: Well, I haven't reconciled with that at all. I think of them every day. Every night, small things happen. And when I slice my bread in
the morning for breakfast and I half my slice of bread, I think of my mother when she bought our bread.
[13:55:00]
I can't help it. It comes into my mind. I try not to because I think -- I say to myself, it doesn't make any difference. You can't make it undone.
But I can't help it. I think of them every day in that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The keeper of memories. Selma is great and going strong still at the age of 103.
And that's it for us now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
