Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Former Head of Iran Branch of Israel's Military Intelligence Danny Citrinowicz; Interview with Vatican's Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development Cardinal Michael Czerny; Interview with Durham University Catholic Social Though and Practice Professor Anna Rowlands; Interview with Princeton University History Professor and "Keeper of My Kin" Author Ada Ferrer. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired May 25, 2026 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:15:00]

DANNY CITRINOWICZ, FORMER HEAD OF IRAN BRANCH OF ISRAEL'S MILITARY INTELLIGENCE: or others, we thought that we can bypass the Palestinian

issue, focusing on Iran and allowing other countries to support us because we are fighting the great evil in the region.

Now, it's what is happening that at the end of the day, they didn't understand that for most countries, Israel is perceived as the one that is

undermining the security of the region. And even worse than that, without moving forward to do something political regarding the Palestinian issue,

not annexing the West Bank, not returning back to war in Gaza, we can forget normalization.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Yes. And that, as you say, just sends the ripples of insecurity continually rippling. So, what

about then this deal, which apparently, according to what we're reading, and we don't know if it's the MOU that's going to be signed in the end, but

it also involves Israel's current war on the Iran proxies, Hezbollah, in Lebanon?

We have, again, from Amos Harel, who writes in Haaretz, Israel, in total contrast to public declarations by its leaders, is helpless against

Hezbollah. The daily threat of explosives-laden drones is causing injuries to soldiers with fatalities every few days. Israel's strategy, if there was

one in Lebanon, has collapsed.

Danny, do you agree with that? And how has this suddenly happened after, you know, June 12th, after all the -- you know, the Gaza, the killing of

Hezbollah types in Lebanon, and now the -- you know, the repeated war in Lebanon? People were saying that Netanyahu is riding high. All of a sudden,

almost overnight, it seems to have collapsed.

CITRINOWICZ: Definitely. I totally agree with everything that Amos Harel wrote. We don't have a strategy in Lebanon. We don't know what we're doing

in Lebanon. We don't know how to cope with Hezbollah once he changes policy and he's retaliating for every attack that Israel attacked in Lebanon.

And even worse than that, now we have the Iranian forcing the U.S. to force us to start the war in Lebanon. So, definitely, Lebanon is a problem. And

even more than that, we really thought that the Axis of Resistance died in June because nobody actually challenged Israel. This war -- and we have to

admit that it was a major achievement by the Iranians. We have the Houthis, the Shia militias in Iraq, and especially Hezbollah.

So, we have to understand that we are coping again with an -- despite everything that we did, killing Nasrallah and Hashem Safieddine, all those

people, we still have to cope with the Axis itself. And regarding Lebanon, we have a major problem also politically for Netanyahu. He promised

dismantling of Hezbollah, and Trump might force him to stop the war because of the agreement with Iran.

AMANPOUR: And finally, what about the Trump-Netanyahu relationship? Again, we read that there's been some heated conversations in the lead-up to this

MOU. Where does this all leave the prime minister?

CITRINOWICZ: Well, we should remember that this is a complete nightmare for Netanyahu. We started the war trying to topple the regime, the same

regime that now this agreement will strengthen it. And as I mentioned, it's also an indication for the collapse of the Israeli policy of strategy

regarding Iran itself. So, that's what the prime minister Netanyahu is trying to work with behind the scenes, convincing President Trump not to

reach an agreement. But President Trump will decide what he needs to do to serve the American interest.

The problem that Netanyahu has is that this is no Obama. He cannot return back to the Congress and give some speeches against President Trump. We

have to accept everything that Trump will decide, now and for the future.

So, Netanyahu, instead of winning the war against Iran, is actually losing not only the war against Iran, but also his ability to pressure the U.S.

again to any sort of war. And even worse than that, we are perceiving in the American public as the one who pushed Trump to this war. So, we lost

from all directions.

AMANPOUR: And what do you think about -- you mentioned Obama, whatever President Trump has put out publicly, again, we don't know where this is

going to end, this deal, if there is one. Do you think he's going to get a better or worse deal than Obama got regarding their nuclear program?

[13:20:00]

CITRINOWICZ: I have to say that the JCPOA wasn't the ultimate agreement, but it was a very good agreement that rolled back significantly the Iranian

nuclear program. We have to say that. Leaving the JCPOA with no strategy led to where we are right now, with Iran's foreign policy of 60 percent,

IRA centrifuges. So, this is the outcome of the decision to leave the JCPOA.

Now, what President Trump is offering now is, I think, something more or less similar in terms of limitation for easing the sanction over Iran. So,

I don't think there is a great change. Yes, you can say freezing the program and taking uranium out is important elements, and I agree with

that. But all in all, I don't think there is a great change between the agreements. And even worse than that, we have to remember what was the

starting point.

The starting point was helping the Iranian people and toppling this regime. And we are ending this war with giving them money and striking the same

regime that we seek to topple.

AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it really does seem, from this perspective, extraordinary. What do you think the security situation, if we can call

that, in that region is going to look like if there's an end to this war? Iran, you know, and the Gulf Arab states, certain Gulf states, more -- you

know, more close to Israel than others. The United States may or may not stay in big presence in that region. What do you see in the future down the

line?

CITRINOWICZ: I am the bearer of bad news in that regard. I think that Iran will become more emboldened into proving deterrence regarding the Gulf

states. And I think that most of them, if not all of them, will turn back to some sort of relationship with Iran, much quicker than they would do

something regarding Israel. This is one thing.

And second, I think that the Gulf state countries have to think hard and clear about their strategy, the security strategy. They've thought about in

the past that having U.S. bases in the region while negotiating with Iran will secure them for the future, and nothing happened. So, I think they

will have to think about diversification, all the security support that they had. I'm not sure they will lean on only one country or one

superpower. And I think in that regard, we'll see dramatic changes.

But the bottom line of things is that, unfortunately, Iran is not going anywhere. This regime is more to the extreme, and it will become more

emboldened as days, weeks and years go by.

AMANPOUR: Danny Citrinowicz, that's indeed a sobering assessment from your perch in Israel there. Thanks for joining us.

Now, later in the program, the Pope on the dangers facing humanity. I'm joined by Canadian Cardinal Michael Czerny and British theologian Anna

Rowlands to discuss Pope Leo's first major theological document.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Now, a landmark moment in the papacy of Pope Leo and a stark warning for humanity. The Pope has released his first encyclical focused on

artificial intelligence. Popes issue encyclicals to offer teaching about moral and even existential challenges facing humanity. And from the very

start, Pope Leo has made clear his concerns about A.I.

[13:25:00]

It is rare, though, for popes to attend a press conference unveiling their theological documents, but Leo did to warn that A.I. must not stay in the

hands of, quote, "a few." He said it already is fueling wars.

Among those presenting the encyclical were Cardinal Michael Czerny of Canada and Anna Rowlands, a British theologian at the University of Durham.

And they are both joining me from just outside the Vatican. We can see St. Peter's Basilica behind you. Welcome to the program.

And can I start by asking you, Cardinal, how extraordinary is this moment? It is true that this pope follows by about 135 years his predecessor, Pope

Leo XIII, talking about the dangers to humanity of the great social change that came from the Industrial Revolution. How does this stack up?

CARDINAL MICHAEL CZERNY, VATICAN'S DICASTERY FOR PROMOTING INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: Well, first of all, it's not around 135 years. It's exactly

the anniversary was the day that he signed it. So, it was very deliberately on the anniversary.

And I think what is very remarkable is that Pope Leo XIII issued his call for the protection of human dignity without real dialogue with those who

were imperiling that dignity. Whereas this time, Pope Leo is issuing the warnings in dialogue with those who are responsible for A.I. I think this

is an extraordinary step forward.

AMANPOUR: And it absolutely has, you know, gripped everybody's imagination. We'll ask both about the whole, you know, rollout with

Anthropic.

But let me ask you, Anna Rowland, the pope called on artificial intelligence to be disarmed. Can you tell me what that means?

ANNA ROWLAND, CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGH AND PRACTICE PROFESSOR, DURHAM UNIVERSITY: Yes. So, this is kind of key phrase that runs through the

whole of the document. Pope Leo feels that we're in a moment, I think, where human beings are beginning to indulge in the idea that we're

fundamentally violent or conflictual by nature, rather than creatures who seek peace and seek to live in unity, ideally with others.

And he's worried that we're kind of swallowing that storyline. And he thinks that when you begin to imagine the world in that way, and think of

human society and human relationships through a fundamental lens of violence and conflict, what happens is you begin almost an arms race. And

that's with your words, that's with your politics. And that also in a very literal way drives the conflict between nations.

So, he wants to move from what he calls a culture of power, in which, in effect, he thinks we are violent and polarized to one which is focused on a

civilization of love. And the only way you get there is to disarm in all senses of the word.

AMANPOUR: But tell me, tell me what that looks like. Yes, go ahead.

CZERNY: At his New Year's message, he called on us to disarm our hearts. So, I think it shows that it's a very profound concept.

AMANPOUR: I get it. And I get his, you know, anti-war message, which is your path for the course, I would say, for religious, much less the Pope.

But what does disarm look like? How do you disarm? What needs to be disarmed?

ROWLANDS: So, I think one of the things that he points out is the way in which algorithms drive a degree of conflict. They profit in a quite literal

sense from conflict in our social relationships. So, thinking again about how we use social media, about how algorithms work, how our data is used in

that context, is a really practical and immediate way that we can pull back from the brink of thinking about the way that social media is driven by

conflict.

Equally, I think he's very convinced that the way that economic life is working, the kind of way in which we're turned into units of profit so

often, that itself also is a way in which we kind of drive elements of separating human beings from their true ends and their true goals. And I

think in terms of politics, he makes it very clear that he wants an era of a return to multilateralism.

He wants dialogue, negotiation. Those rich in relationship, he said, are those who know how to dialogue. Well, that has very immediate obvious

consequences for the way that you approach day-to-day politics and the way you might think the geopolitical moment that we're in right now, in a

multipolar world where there are multiple conflicts.

AMANPOUR: And, Cardinal, I am actually fascinated by what you pointed out and what we're seeing, which is that this time the Pope is actually talking

to the builders, the creators, the major, you know, stakeholders in this new technology. And the co-founder of Anthropic, Christopher Olah, was

there and he actually said the following. We're just going to play what he said. OK.

[13:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER OLAH, CO-FOUNDER ANTHROPIC: Every frontier A.I. lab, including Anthropic, operates inside a set of incentives and constraints that can

sometimes conflict with doing the right thing. The pressure to stay commercially viable and to stay at the frontier of research. Geopolitical

pressure and the older, plainer pressures of pride and ambition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Cardinal, I think that's very honest. And we know that the other tech bros have failed to -- oh, they can't hear me. Anna, can you

hear me?

ROWLANDS: I can't barely hear. I can't hear the --

AMANPOUR: OK. They can't -- can you hear me, Cardinal? No. Anna, can you hear me? All right. We are going to go to a break, and we'll be back,

hopefully having resolved the audio issues.

And coming up afterwards, we'll go straight --

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: So, we are hoping to try to go back to the Vatican and talk about the Pope's encyclical on A.I. once we resolve the technical issues.

But for the moment, we turn to our next story, which is the crisis gripping Cuba. The first shipment of 60,000 tons of rice donated by China has

arrived on the island. It is desperately needed as the United States' fuel blockade continues to strangle Cuba's economy.

Food is becoming scarcer. Blackouts last sometimes for up to 24 hours, and medical services are struggling to keep up. And U.S. pressure on the

communist regime mounts just last week, indicting former President Raul Castro.

This current crisis has deep historical roots, which my next guest explores in her new memoir, "Keeper of My Kin." Cuban-American historian Ada Ferrer

joins me now from Princeton. Welcome to our program.

ADA FERRER, HISTORY PROFESSOR, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND AUTHOR, "KEEPER OF MY KIN": Thanks for having me on.

AMANPOUR: So, let's just start with the situation as it is right now. When you look at it, albeit from the United States, and you have so many

connections there, and all the things I just listed of the pressure that's going on to the Cuban people, maybe onto the government, where do you think

it is headed? Is it Venezuela again? Is it a negotiated settlement with the government to get them to give on all the things America wants them to give

on? Where do you see it going?

FERRER: Well, it's really impossible to tell from here. So, I don't think it's Venezuela. U.S. has a very different relationship to Cuba than

Venezuela historically. There are -- it's a longer-standing regime. It -- and also, it's not clear right now that Cuba's willing to negotiate. It

says it's willing to negotiate, and there are conversations going on. But even Marco Rubio said recently that it's not clear it's going anywhere.

So, where I see it going is possibly to a very dangerous place. Both sides are increasing the hostility of their rhetoric. Marco, not only of their

rhetoric, but of their policy, but Trump tweeted or posted yesterday a picture of an image of a bomb over the words adios in Spanish.

[13:35:00]

Meanwhile, the Cuban government says things like, we're ready, come on, we're not scared of you. So, it seems that the rhetoric is getting hotter

and hotter. And it worries me enormously, because there's a way in which that kind of bellicose rhetoric can create its own reality, its own

momentum. And it may, you know, begins to seem that some things are inevitable. So, I do worry about it --

AMANPOUR: Yes. And as I said, you know, some of the actions by the U.S. are very similar to what they did, like indicting Maduro. They have Raul

Castro pushing the USS Nimitz, the aircraft carrier, closer to Cuba.

But let's just stop for a second and talk about the Cuban people, who are under great distress right now, and have been for decades. So, just some of

the, you know, statistics are awful. Something like 40 to 89 percent of Cubans live in poverty. As I said, the blackouts, you know, the health

minister says 70 percent of basic medicines aren't available, you know, terrible fuel shortages, and apparently food, as well. I mean, China is

sending all that, that tonnage of emergency rice aid.

What do you know, and what do you -- what conversations, if any, are you able to have with people who you know there?

FERRER: Well, they -- I mean, the conversations just reiterate and make much more concrete and tragic, really, what people are living through. And

people are -- they're tired. They're tired of that level of desperation. They're tired of feeling like they're just barely surviving, and survival,

I think, is an open question, in a way it hasn't been ever there. And really, people just want to live. And it doesn't seem that possible right

now.

And the other thing is that there doesn't -- people don't see an out. They don't see what will change it. And some of the things that have been going

on now, the blackouts, which are just getting longer and the scarcity of medicines, and so on, the fact that garbage isn't getting picked up, and

people are kind of burning it, because they have no other choice. All those things were already going on before the current oil embargo.

So, what is happening is that you have a mounting humanitarian crisis, piling on top of a situation that was already almost untenable, even before

January. So, the situation is dire.

AMANPOUR: You know, some of it sounds very similar to what's happening in Iran, a mounting economic catastrophe, and the bombing of Iran, on top of

the catastrophe that people were living under before this war. And, you know, in the same way, diaspora -- I know the Cuban American diaspora, like

the Iranian American diaspora, have very different views, some of them, to what is being thought inside those countries.

So, I want to play a little bit of some sound that we've gathered, which show two different views of how this process should proceed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Castro's have to go. Cuba would have a chance to live again and survive and grow again like it was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I think that their plan to use the figure of our army general, Raul Castro, for a possible intervention in our

country is once again the same tactic they used against the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro Moros. They're going to try to do the same to us,

though I really don't think they'll dare to come in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Ada, the lady was in Miami, a member of the diaspora, and the guy was in Havana. So, there is a difference between the way people

think. Of course, in Havana, they probably can't speak totally freely. Tell me what you know about the, or not, or is there a united view, really, of

how Cuba needs to be rescued?

FERRER: There's not a united view, but I would say it's less -- or it's not only a division of the diaspora versus people on the island. Both those

groups are much more diverse than political leadership and political rhetoric would lead you to believe.

If you look at the Cuban diaspora in South Florida, about almost 50 percent of them are people who've arrived in the U.S. over the last -- since the

special -- since what Cubans call the special period, since after the fall of the Soviet Union. So, they're not an old wealthy elite going back to

recover property, for the most part. And they're people who still have family on the island, who worry a lot about the well-being of their family

on the island.

[13:40:00]

So, they speak, often they speak in very harsh, extreme terms about the Cuban government and the Castros and so on, but they're also sending money

and trying to help their family as much as possible.

And then if you think of people on the island, it's the same thing. Most of them, they're used to political rhetoric, they're used to -- they know what

the government says, et cetera, but most of them, as I said, just -- they're -- most of them are tired of the politics, they're tired of the

slogans.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

FERRER: And they just -- they want their problems solved. They want to be able to eat and not have to cook on wood and coal, because there's nothing

-- or, you know, charcoal, because there's nothing else, right? They want what this government has long promised and never really achieved.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And I want to get to your memoir, "Keeper of My Kin," because, you know, it's just published, and you narrate your own family's

history, grappling with their pain of leaving Cuba just after the Castro revolution. And you talk about your mother's guilt, leaving your half-

brother behind, because his father was, you know, I think was a Cuban Castro revolutionary who wouldn't let him go to the U.S.

Tell me about the framework of your family, and about family reunion, and the difference between your life and Poly, your half-brother's life.

FERRER: Yes, I mean, one of the things that the memoir tries to do, and it's something -- I'm also a historian, right? So, one of the things it

tries to do is to speak in intimate ways about something that I've known for a long time as a historian, and that is that decisions that are made on

high, geopolitical decisions made by leaders and governments, structures long in the making, really play out day to day in people's lives, and often

at the heart of families.

So, they cause things like family separation, they cause things like, you know, forcing people to make the excruciating decision of whether to leave

their home, who to leave behind, and so on. So, what the book tries to do is to tell that story from the perspective of both people who left, and the

people left behind, because, you know, often people think about migration as one way. Someone leaves a country, arrives at another, and then their

life happens in that other country. But that -- it isn't that way -- it isn't normally that way. People maintain those connections, and the people

left behind live with that absence that whole time.

So, it tries to just put a human face on the question of immigration and migration and family separation, and speak to the need for reconciliation.

It chooses to highlight family love and resilience in the face of political division and sometimes very irresponsible acts of governments on both

sides.

AMANPOUR: Well, it's really good to hear you, your historic perspective, your family perspective, on a story that is so, so front and center right

now. Nobody really knows which way it's going to go. Ada Ferrer, thank you very much for being with us.

FERRER: Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: Now, we're going to return to the Vatican, where Pope Leo today, as we said, presented his first encyclical. It was on artificial

intelligence. Now, Cardinal Michael Czerny and theologian Anna Rollins were there before our audio meltdown. Now, you're back.

Look, before we broke away, I was playing for you some of what the Anthropic, Christopher Olah, had said about how the creators are often

really, really spurred on and motivated by self-interest and financial interest and all the rest of it.

So, what I want to ask you, Cardinal, is what was the thinking behind bringing Anthropic in? And I don't know whether there are other A.I.

companies that you're bringing in, but what was the thinking behind it?

CZERNY: The thinking behind it is that we want to have real dialogue. And what was so moving, really, was that Chris Olah expressed this desire in a

sincere and I would say humble way. He said we need what the Church can offer us. We need what the other religions and wisdom traditions can offer

us. And the Holy Father, on his part, welcomed the invitation and in the name of the accepted it, said we aren't ready and willing to talk.

AMANPOUR: And, Anna, what are your thoughts on a sort of an alliance for good, if it's possible to create such a thing, between the papacy and the

A.I. companies?

[13:45:00]

Because, you know, people thought in the olden days, I say the olden days, the beginning of the tech bros and social media, that somehow that would

also, you know, follow a path that would be more good than destructive. And we've seen that it's really taken some very destructive turns. And it's all

motivated by money. And there's no regulation. And it's caused a huge amount of human disruption.

Some have complained that the Pope shouldn't be going into business, so to speak, with the leaders of these tech giants. But do you -- are you

troubled by it? You don't think it gives them too much weight?

ROWLANDS: So, I think the first thing we should say is that, in fact, the Vatican has been engaging for 10 years, just over 10 years, in a dialogue,

a wide dialogue with those in the tech sector. So, it's not as if this is a sudden new moment today. This is a moment of great significance, because

it's a public moment, where we're all being invited to have a common good conversation, not conversations that happen in silos, motivated by exactly

the kind of ambivalent profit interests that you've just described.

But today, there was an openness on both sides to the need to move into a space which is not captured. And I think the point that Chris Olah was

trying to make today was that he feels that the sector inevitably is captured by exactly those motives that you've described. He himself, I

don't know whether he speaks formally for Anthropic or not, is saying that he needs a space which is not captured. And he sees the Pope as a figure of

moral leadership, and someone who has convening power, who can help, I think, foster relationships that enable that conversation to be truly

public.

Now, that crucially means it's not just the tech sector. If the only people around that table in the dialogue are the tech sector, that's when we have

the kind of problems that you're alluding to, I think, in your question. What we need is a common good conversation that puts those who, in fact, at

the moment, are at the bottom of that chain of A.I. effects and technology digitalization effects.

We need those people around the same table. It's their voices that the Pope says he absolutely wants at the center of that common good conversation,

not the private interest conversation.

AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it is incredible to see, to be frank, the Pope, such an august figure of, social justice and preserving humanity. It's

called -- I think it's called Magnificent Humanity, the Latin of this encyclical.

And so, another religious question some have raised, Cardinal, is how do you -- and I'm sort of thinking sort of in the future, how -- which

religion gets to own A.I., if you know what I mean, when it becomes the sort of generative, when it becomes much more human or even outpaces human,

and you've put all these religions into this thing, that who knows who can control it? Is there going to be a religious competition or religions using

it for their own use? Where do you see that going?

CZERNY: No, I don't see it going that way at all. It would be a bit like asking that if all religions are working and calling for peace, that

somehow one of them is going to dominate the peace movement. I mean, I think that's completely out of the question.

And in fact, one of the interesting things is that the Catholic Church is not the only dialogue partner. There are other Christian denominations and

there are other religions and there are other wisdom traditions.

So, no, I don't think we need to make up new problems. Let's rejoice in the fact that there's serious dialogue about huge problems that are bothering a

lot of people and where we're not getting leadership from others in responsibility.

AMANPOUR: Yes, I laughed when you said, let's not make new problems. There certainly are plenty of problems right now, including the problem of what's

known as A.I. slop, A.I. slopaganda. Anna, I'm going to ask you, I think I may know what the Cardinal might say, but certain political leaders, let's

say Donald Trump, for instance, has taken this imagery, A.I. generated images, portraying himself as the Pope, with Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ.

You know, his ministry of war, as they call it, which is actually, you know, the defense ministry, is portraying war, the current ones, in very

religious terms and using all sorts of A.I. generated memes and things to back themselves up.

Now, I know the Pope has spoken against that and warned about that. Tell me about where you think this might lead. Would it get worse? What could

happen?

[13:50:00]

ROWLANDS: I think this kind of problem is exactly what the document is trying to address. Everything from what you might call the gamification of

war, where the ability to use A.I. to make war feel more impersonal, to reduce the reflective interval, so that there's a dialogue and pulling back

from the brink of conflict, so he addresses that.

But I think in terms of the actual use of imagery and the way that you're describing, which is kind of the construction of a persona for a political

leader, exactly those kind of decisions and the kind of public square that that creates is again a kind of conversation that Pope Leo is trying to ask

us to have. Who are we becoming? What does it mean to be human? How do we represent the human?

And I think, in a sense, this idea that the use of very quick-fired A.I. images, I noticed that Donald Trump often puts these out seemingly in the

middle of the night, in the early hours of the morning, but in a sense it makes it too easy for us. There's a kind of immediacy in the tools that

prevents that reflective interval, perhaps, and that changes and shifts the way that we behave.

And Pope Leo talks in this document about the way that an algorithmic order is very, very sort of driven by conflict and polarization. There's

something in the use of A.I. means and algorithms that actually profits, quite literally profits, from conflict and polarization. That's how the

money flows into the system and it drives the politics of polarization.

So, if we can break those links between the use of those kind of images, fast-fire, and the kind of polarizing politics, it's healthier for all of

us.

AMANPOUR: Yes, well, this is an amazing thing. We're very glad to have had you on. We're sorry about our technical difficulties, but thank you, Anna

Rowlands and Cardinal Czerny. Thank you for being with us.

And finally, it is Memorial Day in the United States, a day to honor those who gave their lives fighting for their country. Today, CNN is airing a

special documentary commemorating the greatest generation with reflections from World War II veterans. It's called "Why We Dream."

And among the voices we hear is Jake Larson's. He was just a teenager when he enlisted and he went on to fight fascism in Europe. We first met at the

75th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy when he was 96 years old. He told me then if he was still alive he would return for the 80th anniversary of D-

Day, and he did. Here's a little of what he said 80 years on.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Jake Larson, it's great to see you again. It was five years ago we first met here, and now how old are you?

JAKE LARSON, D-DAY VETERAN: I'm going to be 102 in December.

AMANPOUR: Wow. What is the secret of your health and longevity?

LARSON: I'll have to say, don't die.

AMANPOUR: It's a good one, don't die. You probably didn't know whether you would survive 80 years ago today, did you, when you landed on Omaha?

LARSON: God, no. I was afraid of those landmines they put in the beach there. We were getting small arms fire, but I was afraid to step, I'd step

on one of those mines. The Germans had, I told you that time it was a million mines, and when they started taking them out of there, they found

one and a half million.

AMANPOUR: Wow, you were one of the lucky ones. Do you remember what it was like when they just, I don't know, suddenly you find yourself getting out

of one of those landing craft, you're on that beach, do you remember what it was like?

LARSON: Oh, do I, like it was yesterday. I got on a landing craft and I had water right up to my chin. He let us out a little bit too far, but he

was just a 17-year-old pilot for that boat.

AMANPOUR: Wow, you were all kids.

LARSON: We were all kids, yes.

AMANPOUR: And did you know then what you were fighting for?

LARSON: Oh, definitely, that we knew. Every one of us was prepared to give our life to kick Hitler's ass out of Europe.

AMANPOUR: And you did.

LARSON: And we did.

AMANPOUR: Today, it's 80 years since what you all did so heroically.

LARSON: I don't think I was a hero. I was just like anybody else. We were all in this together. I'm not a hero. People keep calling me hero. I

changed that word.

I took the O off of a hero. I added a T-O there. And people say, well what's a hereto? I says, I'm here to tell you that heroes are up there.

They gave their life. They gave their life so that I could make it.

[13:55:00]

My god, I had, I got a wife, I got children, I got two boys, and a girl. I got nine grandchildren. I got 11 great-grandchildren. I've got a grandson

that's a grandfather. And I'm still going. Crazy.

AMANPOUR: Will you come back again?

LARSON: Oh, god, yes. I'd come back again. Just to honor all those who gave their life so that I could be here.

AMANPOUR: Jake Larson, thank you.

LARSON: Well, thank you, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Jake Larson did pass away, and we all owe him and his fellow comrades a massive debt of gratitude.

That is it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END