Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Cuban Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Fernandez de Cossio; Interview with Haaretz Defense Analyst Amos Harel; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 04, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a failed nation now, and they're not getting any money from Venezuela, and they're not getting any money from
anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: As Washington suffocates Cuba's economy, are officials there are ready for dialogue with the U.S.? Cuba's deputy minister of foreign
affairs joins us from Havana.
Then, more bloodshed overnight in Gaza, with a shaky ceasefire still in effect. We talk war and peace with Israeli journalist Amos Harel.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: I think a bad treaty is worse than no treaty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- with the last U.S.-Russian nuclear treaty about to expire, former NATO Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison tells Walter Isaacson why
America may be better off without it.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Cuba has only 15 to 20 days of oil left at current levels of demand. That's according to the Financial Times. With the U.S. blocking deliveries from
Venezuela, a key supplier, and pressuring Mexico to cancel shipments, while also threatening new tariffs on any country that sells oil to Havana, the
Trump administration is choking off the Cuban economy one gas tank at a time.
Now, oil doesn't just drive Cuba's transportation infrastructure, it also powers an electricity system on the brink of total collapse. But could
talks with Washington give Cuba an off-ramp? Donald Trump thinks so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think they probably would come to us and want to make a deal, so Cuba would be free again. They'll come to us,
they'll make a deal, but Cuba really -- they've got a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Carlos Fernandez de Cossio is Cuba's deputy foreign minister and its top diplomat for U.S. affairs, and he says Havana is even now
exchanging messages with Washington and is ready for meaningful dialogue. Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, welcome to the program.
So, it appears that you are confirming what we heard from President Trump when he said that his administration is talking to the highest people in
your government. He also says that he expects a deal. To be clear, is your government currently working or currently looking at a proposal or demand,
actually, from the United States?
CARLOS FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO, CUBAN DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The U.S. government knows that Cuba is ready and has been ready for a long time
to have a meaningful dialogue with the U.S. government to deal with our bilateral issues. At the moment, we've had some exchanges of messages, but
we cannot say we have set a bilateral dialogue at this moment.
GOLODRYGA: Are these communications, to quote the president, "at the highest level?"
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Most things in Cuba dealing with the United States are linked to the highest level. It's a large issue for us, so there's no
decision, no action taken that doesn't involve the high level of government in Cuba.
GOLODRYGA: So, here you are saying that Cuba is open to meaningful dialogue. It seems like a complete 180 from what your president was saying
just last week, noting that measures taken by Washington are, quote, "criminal and genocidal in nature." Now, you're ready to talk. What has
changed? Is the pressure from the United States working?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: The statement from our president, it was on January the 9th, I believe, he was calling the actions taken by the United States
as they are, and he also said very clearly that Cuba is ready to have a serious and responsible dialogue with the United States that is respectful
of international law and, of course, respectful of our national prerogatives and sovereign prerogatives. There's no change in what he said.
GOLODRYGA: The president of the United States, as well as the secretary here, Marco Rubio, have said that their goal, Marco Rubio has said this
explicitly, would be regime change at some point. How do you respond to that demand?
[13:05:00]
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Well, the first thing to remember is that on the measure announced on January 29th, they claim that Cuba is an emergency to
the U.S. because we pose a threat to the United States. Cuba poses no threat to the United States. It is not aggressive against the United
States. It's not hostile. It doesn't harbor terrorism nor sponsors terrorism. There are no foreign military bases in Cuba contrary to what is
alleged, with the exception of the one existing in Guantanamo, the U.S. base.
Cuba has no trafficking drugs or illegal drugs that would harm the United States, nor there's organizing crime in Cuba, nor organized crime uses Cuba
as a platform against the United States. So, the allegations that they used are not truthful.
Now, the secretary of state has said that he wants regime change, and it's been his policy and the policy of many anti-Cuban politicians in the United
States for a long time. I don't know what the reasoning today of the government is when they speak of talking with Cuba because, of course, our
plan and our idea and our objectives would never be to change the government that we have in Cuba, nor the system or economic or political
system that we have in Cuba.
GOLODRYGA: So, what are you going to do to stop the United States if that is their ultimate goal?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: They are attempting to choke Cuba economically, as they have been trying to do for the past over six decades, I would say. At
this moment, they are threatening countries with tariffs to harm them if they -- in use of their national prerogatives, they export fuel to Cuba.
That would pose a great harm to Cuba. It is the aim to cause as much harm as possible to the people of Cuba.
We have to, to some extent, take a look at our plans, how we use a great quote of austerity, stoicism, sacrifice, and try to overcome reality with
the possibility of having very little -- a lot of limitations, I would say, in the possibility of importing fuel.
GOLODRYGA: Well, blackouts are a daily occurrence across the country as we speak. How much oil does Cuba have stockpiled at this point? Is the
Financial Times reporting correct that you are just 15 to 20 days away from a complete blackout? And why would you not try to, at least for the safety
and for humanitarian reasons of your own citizens, try to at least compromise with the United States in their demands?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: It depends on their demands. I cannot claim -- I will not share what -- reserves in oil are. It's not something that we use
publicly. I don't know which are the sources of the Financial Times. But depending on the claims of the United States, if the U.S. wants cooperation
in fighting the trafficking in drugs, Cuba can help. If the U.S. -- and we've been helping in the past. If the U.S. wants cooperation as a
neighboring country in issues that are of interest to the majority of Americans.
GOLODRYGA: You said Cuba is not trafficking drugs, so how would you help the United States?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Well, we've been helping in the past, and we can continue to help with traffic that goes within the region. And a lot of the
contribution and the cooperation that Cuba has provided has helped the security of the southeastern border of the United States from drug going
from South America to North America, and attempts to use Cuba's waters or Cuba's air.
GOLODRYGA: What is the red line that Cuba will not cross to get more oil flowing into the country?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: I think it would be similar to the ones that the U.S. has. We're not ready to discuss our constitutional system, as we suppose
the U.S. is not ready to discuss their constitutional system, their political system, their economic reality. And as a sovereign nation, we
have the same beliefs as the U.S. But there are many other issues that we can discuss that can be useful for both countries and that could help even
the countries in the region in several areas, the ones I raised, but also in science, also in health, also in education.
But also, Cuba is in a process of economic transformation that has had many difficulties precisely because of the pressures and the economic warfare
coming from the United States. I'm sure that if we sit down and if the U.S. were ready to ease the very illegitimate pressure it puts on Cuba, we could
evolve in a way so that Americans could travel to Cuba, which today is prohibited by their government, could do business in Cuba, which today is
prohibited by their government, could visit Cuba, could do tourism in Cuba, which today is prohibited by their government.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: You mention and describe as illegitimate the U.S. rationale for the blockade. The Trump administration's January 29th executive order
specifically cites Cuba hosting hostile countries, that being Russia and China, as the reason for this new blockade. You have said that there are no
hostile actors in the country, so I'm asking you to confirm again, to be precise, are there any Russian intelligence operators or operations, or the
same with Chinese security operations, inside of Cuba right now?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: There are no foreign operations in Cuba, and there's no action or activity in Cuba from any foreign country that is hostile
against the United States or that can harm the United States.
GOLODRYGA: So, no foreign surveillance facilities?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: What we host in Cuba are embassies of these countries, as the U.S. hosts embassies of those countries. The U.S. hosts
business from those countries. We host business from those countries.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Well, if no deal is reached in the next 30 days, let's say, depending on how much oil you have on reserve, and blackouts
intensify, are you willing to be held accountable to your own citizens as to why their country has turned into a failed state?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: But the reason our country would be -- would eventually, or hypothetically, become a failed state is not by the doing of
our government. It's a precise and defined aim of the U.S. government of trying to destroy the livelihood of Cubans. If any country were to try to
destroy, or a set of countries, the livelihood of Americans, would the responsibility be of the U.S. government, or the responsibility would be of
those that want to be hostile to the U.S. and want to harm the people of the United States?
GOLODRYGA: Before January 3rd, and that is the day of the operation where the United States seized Maduro from Venezuela, the Cuban economy was in
its worst state since the early 1990s. You have suffering from massive stagflation. Real world inflation is estimated to be about 70 percent by
the end of this year. You've had chronic blackouts for many, many years. So, how is this all the fault of the United States policies and none of
yours?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: If you look at U.S. legislation, if you look at what politicians in the U.S. say, you'd be sure that would happen. Politicians
in the United States have been betting since the 1960s that their coercive economic measures against Cuba will make the country collapse. Many
politicians, officials from the State Department, officials in the White House have said that for years.
It's a miracle, I would say for them, that Cuba has lasted so long. It has been the aim of the United States, by their own doing, in believing that
their actions can make Cuba collapse. So, blaming the Cuban government for something that the U.S., with its powerful capacity and influence around
the world, blaming the Cuban government for the actions that they do is quite responsible.
Try to measure any country, any country that would support and be able to sustain what Cuba has done. Many countries around the world were on the
brink of crisis just because the U.S. government said that it would raise or put in some tariffs. What Cuba suffers is equivalent to war in terms of
economic coercive measures. And, of course, that is a full responsibility of the United States.
GOLODRYGA: So, given the pressure there and the stresses applied by sanctions, why would your government make the decision then to spend about
40 percent of its national budget on luxury hotels in the last two years, while the electric grid, which is almost completely in collapse now,
received less than 3 percent of that same investment?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: 40 percent is an exaggeration. I don't know where you get your figures. But tourism is a very legitimate industry that provides
income to our country, that provides for health care, education, infrastructure. It's an important industry in our country. So, it's not
luxury for a few amount of people to get into the hotels, it's a source of income, a very important source of income for Cuba and for many countries
around the world. And it's a legitimate industry.
GOLODRYGA: Is it a legitimate question to ask where your government is deciding to allocate the limited resources it has to provide for its
people?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: It's a very legitimate question. And you could ask, and some people could think you could use it in building roads. Some could
say that we could go back and produce sugarcane and export sugar again, as we did for 200 years. But it's a legitimate industry. So, you could ask
that you could allocate 15 percent or 30 percent, in other words. But that is not the reason why Cuba has had a very difficult economic situation. If
it were, the U.S. would not be so keen in continuing to increase pressure against Cuba.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: We've now seen that Venezuela is basically off the grid in terms of supplying oil to your country. It had been the number one
supplier. And there's now pressure on Mexico to do the same. What communication are you in now with the Sheinbaum government, as you know
that she is speaking right now, with the Trump administration on providing any sort of oil to your country?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: We're communicating with many governments. And the Mexican government is a very close government to ours. It's a country that
has historically been very close to Cuba. What is illegitimate is for the U.S. to deprive Cuba from something as precious as fuel and so necessary
for the life of any country. What's illegitimate is for it to pressure a country and threatening them if they export their products to the country
of their choosing. That is absolutely unfair and illegitimate.
GOLODRYGA: And that is a question that's been raised, the humanitarian question that's been raised in the fallout of completely choking off the
country from gas reserves, et cetera, and oil. And President Trump responded by saying that he thinks he can work a deal out. That is similar
language that we heard from President Trump prior to his seizing of Nicolas Maduro and now putting his number two, Delcy Rodriguez, in place and in
power.
So, what is to stop or prevent that same type of chain of events from happening in Cuba? How do you know that the United States is not currently
working or speaking with somebody in your government to take out your leadership and put them in place?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: They've been trying to do that for a long time, to speak of Cubans of different types. The Cuban government is united, united
behind its president, and it's got the support of the majority of the population. So, they could try to do that. I cannot doubt if they try to do
it. They've been attempting to do it in Cuba and in many parts of the world. Again, it's also something very illegitimate.
But as I said at the beginning, we are ready to sit down with the U.S. and have a meaningful, serious, and responsible dialogue. And let's look at our
differences, the real differences. What are the issues of Cuba that bother Americans? What are the issues of Cuba that truly might be thought of
causing harm to the majority of American citizens, to harm their standard of living, their security, their peaceful, their neighborhoods? What really
-- what real issues do harm them? And what issues can be there that can allow the U.S. to work with Cuba, to do business in Cuba that can be
profitable, to work with Cuba together for peace and tranquility in our region? What stops them from doing that? I think that would be a very broad
agenda between the two countries.
GOLODRYGA: One of those issues, perhaps, are political prisoners. Amnesty International insists that over 1,000 political prisoners are currently
behind bars. We know that your president last month released about 500 of them following a request from the Vatican. Can Cuba commit to releasing the
1,000 that Amnesty International say remain behind bars?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: I don't know if the U.S. government wants to discuss prisoners with us because the U.S. has many more prisoners relatively and
absolutely than we do. It has more prisoners comparatively than any country around the world.
GOLODRYGA: I'm talking about political. I'm not talking about criminals.
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: I don't know if they want to discuss about prisoners.
GOLODRYGA: I'm not talking about political. I'm not talking about criminals.
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: I include political prisoners. I include people in the United States that are incarcerated without trial for years, thousands
and thousands, and that is political when you do that. And I'm talking about that, too. Does the U.S. want to talk about that, too, with Cuba?
GOLODRYGA: So, you're saying that releasing 1,000 --
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: We're ready to discuss any issue.
GOLODRYGA: So, has it been raised?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Pardon?
GOLODRYGA: Has it been raised already?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: What's the question?
GOLODRYGA: Has the issue over political prisoners been raised in the current conversations with the U.S. government?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: No. We haven't spoke -- we haven't had a dialogue. We haven't had a dialogue yet.
GOLODRYGA: So, what is the --
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: And again, we're ready.
GOLODRYGA: What is the mode of communication that's currently open now?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: I'm not ready to speak about that. We've had just exchanges of messages.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, -- but nothing has been mentioned about political prisoners is the point you're making?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Correct.
GOLODRYGA: I do want to ask about the chain of events following the seizure of Maduro in Venezuela along with his wife because we know that
there were scores of Cuban military officers that were killed protecting Maduro. It had been Cuba's public statement that there had been no military
personnel protecting the Venezuelan leadership for a number of years, and come to find out there were, and you had a very high-profile memorial, and
we saw the funerals that you hosted for all of them. So, why lie about something that you then made so public?
[13:20:00]
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: To say that we're lying is a strong word. In 2018, 2019 and 2020 when this was raised, we're very clear. We have no troops in
Venezuela. We do not participate in military operations in Venezuela. That was what we said consistently.
What was in Venezuela and the officers that you claimed lost their lives there, were security detail, personal security detail for the president of
Venezuela. That in no way is equivalent to troops. People know what troops are. There was no regiment. There was no battalion. There were not heavy
machinery in terms of military in -- of Cuba in Venezuela. It was simply a security detail for the president of Venezuela. That is not troops
equivalent in any measure anyway. So, it's wrong to say that we were lying.
GOLODRYGA: Who was paying for that security? The Maduro government?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Pardon?
GOLODRYGA: The Maduro regime was paying?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: What is the question?
GOLODRYGA: The Maduro regime was paying for that security?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: No, they were not paying for it. No payment for the security.
GOLODRYGA: So, where did that money come from?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: It was cooperation. Cooperation. Which money?
GOLODRYGA: It costs money to send troops to another country. Money that you say you don't have.
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Cuba paid for that. Cuba pay the salary.
GOLODRYGA: So, that's where Cuba allocates its resources. How do you account to your own citizens that that's where you allocate your resources
instead of providing stable electricity for them?
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: To pay the salary of 30, 40 people in another country, compare that to the -- what the U.S. pays in military expenditure
and yet it has poor people in the richest country in the world. Why would that be wrong? And the people of Cuba supported that and are proud of that,
the majority of Cubans.
GOLODRYGA: OK. Well, we'll have to get them to answer that question at some point as well. We do appreciate the time today. Carlos Fernandez de
Cossio, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us.
FERNANDEZ DE COSSIO: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: All right. And coming up later in the program, deadly strikes continue in Gaza despite the ceasefire. Haaretz analyst Amos Harel joins us
to explain the stakes for the whole region.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, another diplomatic news. Iran has conditionally agreed to nuclear talks with the United States. The foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi,
will meet special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner in Oman, though Axios is reporting that those talks could now
be in jeopardy. On Tuesday, Witkoff met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who warned him that Iran should not be trusted.
As for the ceasefire in Gaza, 21 Palestinians, including at least three children, were killed by Israeli artillery shelling after the Israeli
military says a soldier was severely injured by gunfire early Wednesday morning. And efforts to advance to the next phase of the ceasefire are
painstakingly slow. The Rafah Crossing reopened partially on Monday after Israel closed it nearly two years ago.
[13:25:00]
To discuss all of this, Amos Harel, senior defense analyst for Aretz, and he joins us from outside of Tel Aviv. Amos, it has been a while. It is good
to see you. We will get to the Iran talks in just a moment, whether or not they are still on. But I do want to ask you about the latest in Gaza now
with the ceasefire and the reopening of the Rafah Crossing, a big symbolic moment.
But we know the numbers of people actually crossing over are very scarce, just trickling in both from the Egyptian side and Israeli. This, in
addition to the numbers, as we noted, of people killed over the weekend in Gaza raises the question of where the ceasefire stands at this point. How
delicate is it?
AMOS HAREL DEFENSE ANALYST, HAARETZ: The situation remains very, very delicate. The president announced moving to stage two of his plan about
three weeks ago, and this is now being gradually implemented. And yet there are many obstacles on the ground and mostly everyday friction between
Israeli forces and Hamas terrorists on what is known as the yellow line separating the Israeli controlled areas and Hamas controlled areas along
the strip.
So, there was an incident yesterday evening in which an Israeli company commander was injured, severely injured by Palestinian gunfire. Israel
retaliated by trying to assassinate a few commanders in these organizations. One brigade commander from the Islamic Jihad, one company
commander was involved in the October 7th massacre from Hamas. As you said, there were many casualties on the Palestinian side. This is very volatile
right now.
And even if the United States manages to get things under control, there remain many problems looking at the future. First and foremost, the
question of dismantling Hamas weapons. This is the biggest obstacle to reaching any kind of attempt to, um, to organize the situation and to calm
down the frictions between Israel and Hamas.
GOLODRYGA: You also write that it is Prime Minister Netanyahu's quiet hope that phase two never really turns into anything and manifest. Instead,
Prime Minister Netanyahu, according to your reporting, would like to see it collapse. Is this something that the White House do you think is turning a
blind eye to?
HAREL: I think this is quite clear. Netanyahu is not saying the silent part loud yet, but anybody who's been following this carefully has noticed
that the Israelis are very, very doubtful about the outcome off the Trump plan when it comes to Hamas. Again, the main obstacle being the Hamas
weapons, and Netanyahu is assuming that Trump would try to push this forward.
But at one point or another, things would break down with Hamas. And in that case, I think that for political domestic reasons as well, Netanyahu
would rather have a renewal of the war against Hamas. This hasn't gone down the way the prime minister planned this or the way the prime minister
promised to his voters, his supporters. He promised for almost two years a final and decisive victory over Hamas. This is not what happened in Gaza.
And if hostilities between Hamas and Israel resume in a major way, then finally, perhaps Netanyahu would have his chance to fulfill his promise and
defeat Hamas. And of course, if this does happen, it will happen without the shadow of the fate of the Israeli hostages, because all Israeli
hostages were returned to Israel with the Trump deal in mid-October last year. And even the last body of an Israeli hostage was retrieved by the IDF
a week ago. So, this is a very different situation than the one we've had in the past.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, a different situation. But you're also in an election year and you're coming at a time where once again, classic Netanyahu would like
to take credit for everything that goes right and nothing that goes wrong. And so, he's taken credit recently for bringing all of the hostages home,
not noting that not all of these hostages came to Gaza as murdered hostages. There were hostages that were brought to Gaza alive and that were
killed either at the hands of Hamas or perhaps by shelling from the IDF. And a number of Israeli officials have said for many months prior to the
ceasefire that a deal could have been reached to bring them home.
So, that notwithstanding, would the prime minister then benefit from going back into Gaza? I just mean from a popularity standpoint, is the Israeli
public ready for renewed fighting in Gaza to see more soldiers die, to see the numbers and the images from Gaza of more civilians dying?
HAREL: So, the facts you mentioned are absolutely true. Out of 251 hostages, more than 80 came back, Israeli bodies coming back from Gaza, and
about half of those were killed while they were in Gaza, either by IDF shelling or by murdered by Hamas. This is not a great achievement from
Netanyahu. And typically, Netanyahu would celebrate his achievements while ignoring his responsibility to what is failed. It's a very problematic
issue and an emotional issue for him and for the Israeli voters. But I don't think that he can leave things as they are.
If Trump succeeds, and actually continues with his plan, and there are some achievements there, Hamas is dismantled, there's a certain amount of
recovery for the Gaza Strip, things calm down, then Netanyahu could claim another victory. But if not, I think that most of the Israeli public in the
long run, although they doubt his intentions, and they're weary of what could happen, they're also worried of the possibility of Hamas remaining
there.
If Hamas remains in control of 50 percent more or less of the Gaza Strip, if Hamas is still there with its jihadist ideology, then even people from
the center and even some on the Israeli left would not be happy about that. The question, of course, is can Netanyahu actually deliver anything? Can he
actually do what he failed to do for so long? But I think he believes he can, especially as he doesn't need to worry about the hostages anymore.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Hamas, as you note, remains armed, financed, embedded. You talk about battalion leaders there. I mean, it does sound like they're
starting to reconstitute at this point, and the opposite of disarming, which had been one of the demands and ultimatums by all sides here.
At the same time, as I noted, the Rafah Crossing has slowly reopened. What is the sustainability of that? Obviously, a big symbolic move, but in terms
of civilians actually being able to cross the border and get the medical aid that they need and for aid to go in, what's the future there?
HAREL: So, it's much more symbolic than anything else. There are just a few hundred people traveling from side to side every day. It's really not
really significant for the time being. But yes, it does mean symbolically that Gaza Strip is open to some extent to the world. And it's also very
different, again, than what Netanyahu has promised the Israeli public.
And of course, now he's taking a stand against certain involvement of the Palestinian Authority. But we have to admit the truth. It is actually the
Palestinian Authority which is helping to operate the Rafah Crossing.
In the long run, again, this has to do with what happens with Hamas. Hamas has agreed, according to the Trump plan, to give up its civilian
responsibility to Gaza. We'll have to see if this actually materialized. But other than that, whenever it comes to the discussion of its weapons,
all we hear are vague promises about what is known as their heavy or more strategic weapons, their remaining rocket launchers, and so on.
What Israel is saying is that this isn't enough, that Hamas needs to give up also its Kalashnikovs, its AK-47s, because is what -- this is the --
these are the weapons that are actually used to controlling Gaza and to intimidate anybody else on the Palestinian side. So, this is a crucial
issue from an Israeli perspective. The Israelis have made that clear when they talked to the people around Trump, but it remains to be seen how
insistent the Americans would be over that, or if the president would rather paint an optimistic picture about what's going on and ignore these
details.
GOLODRYGA: From every expert we've spoken to, it did seem like the main focus of Steve Witkoff's visit to Israel this week was primarily that of
Iran and not of Gaza. And this says reports are coming in, Amos, that perhaps these talks now may be off. CNN has not confirmed it, but Axios is
reporting that they may well indeed not happen in Oman on Friday.
The United States, from all reporting, is saying that beyond just ending its nuclear program, Iran must give up its ballistic missiles program as
well as any sort of aid it provides its proxies. You have described any of these talks as a last chance before a collision course. How likely do you
think we are going to see a collision course?
[13:35:00]
HAREL: I think it's more likely, I wouldn't bet on it, that the final decision would be made by President Trump. And we know that it's not
worthwhile to gamble on what the president would do. And he likes to keep all options on the table. He likes to keep those matters as vague as
possible until he makes the final decision.
However, the fact that they were about to meet with Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister in Istanbul, then it was moved to Oman. And then,
according to our colleague, Barak Ravid's report on Axios, it's been cancelled about an hour ago. If we look at the way things have happened in
the recent hours, it doesn't seem likely that this summit would be held.
Perhaps there will be more attempts for negotiations. This could be part of the messages or signs being sent from one side to another. And yet what I
hear from the Israeli officials is that they're rather doubtful whether an agreement could be reached.
What Netanyahu and the chiefs of Mossad and the IDF have emphasized to the American envoy, Witkoff, yesterday in their meetings at Jerusalem and Tel
Aviv, was that any kind of agreement could not deal only with the nuclear issue, but also with Iran's threats towards the region, whether it's a
proxy forces around the Middle East. All of these issues are seen by Israel as crucial.
And again, it's no secret that Israel is not rooting for an agreement with Iran. The paradox here being that Trump has already promised the Iranian
people that help was on the way after the massacre that happened all over Iran in the first two weeks of this January. And if, in fact, the price the
Iranian regime would have to pay would be to sign a new nuclear deal, that wouldn't be enough for the Iranian people and to all of those people who
lost their loved ones during the Iranian protests.
So, in fact, what could materialize if a deal is successful is that Iran would give up some of its nuclear capabilities and would get an American
response, which would include lifting the sanctions. This would mean that the regime would actually strengthen. This is not what the Iranian people
want. And evidently, it's not what the Israeli government is. This is not what they suggest the Americans would do. So, Netanyahu would hope for
Trump to decide to attack.
But Israel is watching this for the time being from the sidelines. It knows that it could be serious implications for us as well. Iran has already
threatened to bomb Tel Aviv. But we'll have to wait and see what the final decision made by the president is.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. In the final 30 seconds here, it's pretty hard to say that the president could call a nuclear deal a victory, given that just six
months ago he said that because of the U.S. bombing, Iran's nuclear program was completely obliterated. But quickly, Amos, is Israel prepared for
attacks from Iran? Because the last time, over the 12-day war, there were casualties.
HAREL: Of course, there were casualties. There were 30 Israeli civilians who were killed by ballistic missiles sent from Iran. And yet, I think
Israel has quite improved since then. It's not fully protected. This could be dangerous for the home front. But there have been some improvements made
in Israel's defense strategy and its operations.
And also, what we have to consider is the fact that Iran itself is not protected, neither from American attacks or Israeli strikes. Iran has lost
all of its anti-aircraft capabilities, which is something quite significant.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Amos, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for the time. Good to see you.
HAREL: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: And still to come for us after the break, with the U.S.-Russia Nuclear Weapons Treaty set to expire, what does this mean for global
security? We'll hear from Kay Bailey Hutchison, former U.S. ambassador to NATO.
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: On Thursday, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia is set to expire. The end of New START
marks the first time in more than five decades that Washington and Moscow have no formal limits on their nuclear arsenals. So, what does that mean
for global security and for the already strained U.S.-Russia relations? Walter Isaacson speaks with Kay Bailey Hutchison, former U.S. ambassador to
NATO, about what's at stake.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Kay Bailey Hutchison, welcome to the show.
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Thank you, Walter. Great to be with you.
ISAACSON: This week, the last nuclear arms control pact between the United States and Russia called New START is expiring. Tell me what it was about
and why are we letting it expire?
HUTCHISON: Well, it's because really there was no verification. There was not enough verification in the treaty that the Americans felt comfortable
with. And there's been a negotiation going on for months to try to get a better verification. And I think that was not acceptable. And I think it is
important that it's more important that we have the verification, I think, than to have a treaty --
ISAACSON: But wait a minute, without the treaty, we won't have any verification, right?
HUTCHISON: Well, but Russia has shown how untrustworthy it is, Walter. I mean, look at what they say about what they're doing in Ukraine. They act
like Ukraine started this war. Are you kidding? I mean, I don't think verification would -- I think you have to have safeguards if you are going
to have a real treaty. And, you know, when I was at NATO, really, Russia had been violating the INF treaty for years.
ISAACSON: You mean the Intermediate Nuclear Force One that was in Europe?
HUTCHISON: Yes, I'm sorry.
ISAACSON: Yes.
HUTCHISON: The Intermediate. And they had been violating it. They kept denying that they were violating it. And we had pictures. We had pictures
of the serial number that was Russian. And we went through both Republican and Democratic administrations trying to keep that going. But finally, we
had to withdraw from the INF treaty because we had to have the defense against what they were building that they said they weren't building.
So, I'm not going to really question that we don't have an agreement as much as I would rather have an agreement that was verifiable.
ISAACSON: Yes, you raise the Ronald Reagan slogan of trust, but verify, and that's not the case. But one of the things that Reagan believed when he
did it was Gorbachev, back when I was covering strategic arms reduction talks, was he felt that the treaty itself wasn't the most important thing.
The talks, the process, the negotiations actually were helpful. Do you agree with that?
HUTCHISON: I think certainly, yes. The negotiation is where you see what the problems are. You see what their most important priority is. And yes, I
think that is certainly a valid issue. But we have also been in talks with Russia for months, if not years, about all these treaties, INF, START --
New START, trying to get this done right. And again, I think a bad treaty is worse than no treaty. And we just have to have the intelligence and we
have to have our own protections, our own defense, so that whatever we know their priorities are, which is aggression.
[13:45:00]
I mean, Walter, when I was at NATO and I've talked to Matt Whitaker, who's still there, Russia wants to recreate the Soviet Union. That is Putin's
goal here. That's why he has invaded countries that are not NATO countries like Georgia and Ukraine. And he is trying to take one step, see what we
will do. And if we don't really retaliate or stand our ground, he keeps going. And that -- frankly, that's what happened with Crimea. He took
Crimea in 2014. And we sort of complained about it, said it was terrible, and then walked away, didn't really stand up and say, leave Crimea. So,
they have militarized Crimea and at the same time violating the INF treaty.
And so, you have to sit there and say, how much longer are we going to watch this happen and not do enough to deter Russia's invasions?
ISAACSON: Well, let me ask you that question. Are we doing enough to deter Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
HUTCHISON: No, we're not. We're not doing enough. We should be coming down on Russia's economy right now. Now, today or tomorrow, I think we're going
to see that India has stopped -- has said they're going to stop buying oil from Russia. That's huge because really the countries that have been buying
oil from Russia, China and India, are fueling and including some in Europe because they don't have other capabilities. But that's going to start
really hurting Russia's ability to do what he's doing in Ukraine.
And you know, Walter, that the United States Senate has over 80 votes commitments to hunkering down on the real embargoes against countries and
tariffs against countries that would be continuing to buy from Russia. And so far, that bill hasn't gotten to the president. He said he would sign it.
And I think passing that bill out of the Senate, taking it to the House, having the president sign it so that you have stronger economic sanctions
against the countries that are fueling what Russia is doing in Ukraine, which is, it's war crimes.
ISAACSON: Now, tell me about Trump's relationship with President Putin.
HUTCHISON: I think the president has tried to stop this war. And I think there have been a lot of talks. We've seen that. I don't know why we
haven't come down harder on Putin. I don't know why President Trump hasn't, especially after that terrible meeting in Alaska in which Putin was
continuing to bomb Ukraine while he was, quote, "talking about a ceasefire." He was bombing as he was coming over to meet in our country
with our president.
ISAACSON: During President Trump's first term, you were his ambassador to NATO. And there were discussions of the New START treaty that started up
back then and for a while was extended. Tell me about Trump's relation to Russia during the first term when you were an ambassador to NATO and how
it's different this term.
HUTCHISON: Well, we did the whole charade with Russia in the first term on the INF treaty. And we just held our ground and we said, we proved that
Russia was violating. They kept denying it. They denied it all the way. And what the Europeans asked us to hold off while they explained to their
country, their countries, their populace, that Russia was violating and that it put us in jeopardy not to have the defensive weapons. And we gave
them 60 days and they then went to their populace and America withdrew and NATO passed a resolution approving that and saying, yes, that was the right
thing to do.
But you just have to be very clear eyed about Putin. He will tell an untruth to your face. And we now know that second term, we certainly know
that we dealt with him in the first term. We had to do what was required under the treaty, which is to not have a defensive weapon.
[13:50:00]
We withdrew from the treaty honorably, kept all of the requirements of the treaty because Russia was violating and never, ever admitted that they had
been violating it. But they were putting those missiles right on the edge of Crimea so that they would be in range of Europe.
So, I think we now are more clear eyed. I think that President Trump has been critical somewhat of President Putin. But I think now is the time to
come down and especially with India saying they're not going to buy Russian oil. China still is. And I think it's time to ramp up the pressure on the
economy of Russia, which is killing people as we speak.
They are killing innocent civilians. They're destroying the infrastructure. And it's just unacceptable for the Europeans and Americans and NATO to keep
our security umbrella over our populations when we're dealing with Vladimir Putin, who doesn't -- who has no grain of truth or honor on his side.
ISAACSON: Well, let me talk about two things that are coming together right now. The end of the Strategic Arms Treaty, this New START treaty. And
secondly, NATO countries feeling that they no longer have absolute unconditional support of the United States. Do you think those two forces
together might cause a country like Germany to say, now we need nuclear weapons?
HUTCHISON: That's a pretty stark contrast. I think -- I do think we will rebuild the trust with Europeans. And I do think that the outcry about
Greenland was something that the President saw and surely begins to see that we, that the Europeans are never going to be like the United States.
They're never going to be like us. They're never going to assess a risk and begin to immediately deter that risk and have a strategy to do it. That's
America. But we are much stronger with our European allies agreeing together on what the strategy would be.
I went through this when we determined that China was the adversary against our countries in the future. And the Europeans were concerned about their
trade relationships with China because it's very important for their economies. But we worked together on beginning to bring the Asia-Pacific
countries into the summits that we have in NATO. So, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea are now part of the NATO summits because we do want
to have a united front against Chinese aggression, which they have certainly proven in those other countries.
And so, we were building a strong alliance in that way, and NATO still is. But the trust factor with Europeans is real. I have certainly been talking
to my European counterparts, and it's there. And I think we can rebuild because we do have a strong historic base. And we know that if we are going
to face other major adversaries, Russia and China, that we need to have a united front and that everyone produces something. They don't produce as
much as we do, but they produce a lot. And we need to have that alliance strong.
ISAACSON: In an interview with The New York Times, when he was asked about the New START treaty expiring, President Trump said, and I quote, "If it
expires, it expires. We'll just do a better agreement." He later added in the interview, you probably want to get a couple of other players involved
also. What do you mean by that? And do you agree?
HUTCHISON: Well, for sure. Because any kind of limitation we have on nuclear arms that would be verifiable would be very good. China, we tried
to put China into it. That may be the point the president's trying to make. We tried to put China into it when we started the negotiations, when I was
still at NATO. And having a START treaty with a limitation on nuclear weapons capabilities with both Russia and China would make the world a
better place.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchinson, thank you for joining us again.
HUTCHISON: Thank you, Walter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a win for the books. At the Westminster Kennel Club dog show in New York, four-year-old Doberman Pinscher Penny beat out
2,499 other dogs for the top prize. The last time a Doberman won the Best in Show award was 37 years ago. And that winner was also trained by Penny's
handler, Andy Linton. Last night's triumph was extra special for Linton, who struggles with Parkinson's disease and has said his career may be
coming to an end. As their prestigious competition concluded its 150th edition, Judge David Fitzpatrick confidently declared that the finalist's,
quote, "will go down in history." And she surely will. Congrats to Penny.
And that is it for us for today. Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
