Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser and "All We Say: The Battle for American Identity" Author Ben Rhodes; Interview with Forward Thinking Co-founder and Director Oliver McTernan; Interview with Editor-in-Chief, Documented Ethar El-Katatney. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 27, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
President Trump promised to end America's forever wars, but can he find a way out of the Iran War of choice? I speak to Ben Rhodes, former Obama
Deputy National Security adviser.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are deepening our operation in Lebanon. The IDF is operating with large forces
on the ground and is taking control of strategic areas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- as Israel presses ahead in Lebanon, Gaza remains devastated and violence spikes in the West Bank. Is there any path to peace? Conflict
resolution expert Oliver McTernan joins me.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ETHAR EL-KATATNEY, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, DOCUMENTED: These remittances are a huge lifeline for immigrant communities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Republicans push to tax money sent abroad by non-citizens that could hit Haiti particularly hard. Hari Sreenivasan speaks to the
editor-in-chief of Documented about what it might mean for Haitian families.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
As negotiations drag on between Washington and Tehran, a draft framework for a possible agreement is beginning to emerge. Iranian state media
reports that the proposal under discussion would see the U.S. lift its blockade of Iranian ports and pull American military forces back from
Iran's vicinity, while Tehran would restore commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to pre-war levels within a month. The White House has
denied that report.
The on-again, off-again optimism means that oil markets remain jittery. The economic shock is still rippling around the world and many Americans remain
skeptical of another war of choice in the Middle East.
So, what is the best way to deal with monumental mistrust between the two sides that's actually been growing for decades? President Obama's landmark
Cairo speech to the Muslim world in 2009 recognized that challenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is
prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And he referenced the mistrust. My first guest helped write that speech and was also Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser. Now, Ben
Rhodes turns inwards to what defines America with his new book out, "All We Say: The Battle for American Identity." It traces America's history through
15 speeches from Benjamin Franklin's to Donald Trump's, arguing that the fight over the nation's story is far from settled.
And Ben Rhodes is joining me now from Washington. Welcome back to the program.
BEN RHODES, FORMER U.S. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It's so good to see you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, let's talk about the world that you know a lot about before getting to your book. This on again, off again, it's all proceeding nicely,
but it's not happening, and we'll bomb them if it doesn't, and et cetera, et cetera. Can you make head or tails of what you think is emerging?
RHODES: I can, Christiane. I mean, I think the bottom line here is that the pre-war objectives, the idea that you might bring about a change in the
Iranian regime or a collapse of that regime, that you could terminate the nuclear program.
And you'll recall that the terms under discussion or the proposals from Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff before the war involved not just ending the
nuclear program but ending the ballistic missile program or at least constraining it to a certain range, ending support for proxies.
The Trump administration has come to terms -- or has to come to terms with the fact that they're not going to achieve their objectives and that the
only way out of a war that has been calamitous for everybody involved, especially the Iranian people, but the global economy, the American
military, the only way out is to essentially accept terms in which, you know, the blockade is lifted on Iranian ports, that the Strait of Hormuz is
reopened, that Iran is going to get some revenue from sanctions relief or tolling that Strait, and that you're going to negotiate a nuclear agreement
that bears a lot of resemblance to the one that I worked on in the Obama administration in which Iran continues to have a program, but they accept
limitations on enrichment and they ship their stockpile out of the country.
[13:05:00]
And I think the reason that we're stuck is the sequencing of those events is important for how it appears. You know, does Iran get revenue up front
or later? Are nuclear commitments made up front or are they moved back?
And frankly, I think the Iranians feel like they have leverage. And so, they're more than happy to wait this out. And Donald Trump just has to
decide whether he can accept and spin, frankly, an outcome that is far from what he promised.
AMANPOUR: And he does say a lot of very disparate things to a lot of disparate people, people who have his phone number or people who he calls
in the press, et cetera. The latest is telling PBS, I believe, that, no, no, no, there'll be no sanctions relief even if the Iranians ship out the
enriched uranium. That's one thing. Then the other thing was talking about, I don't really care about the midterms. I've got all the time in the world.
They're the ones, the Iranians, who are desperate to make a deal.
Can you pass those two statements? Because one is substantive on whether they get sanctions relief or something for exporting their enriched
uranium. Of course, under your deal, the JCPOA, they did export it, but it wasn't enriched to the level it is now.
RHODES: Yes. Look, the way I look at this is, you know, he may be aware that the Iranians feel like they have leverage because they control that
Strait, and they've demonstrated that they can do that. And they don't care about the economic circumstances of their own people. Frankly, their own
brutality allows them to kind of wait out the pressure from this blockade.
Trump can say he doesn't care about the effect on the midterms, but the reality is, it's not just the Republican Party in this country that is
getting really impatient with this war. It's the Gulf Arab allies that also have Trump's ear, who need to move that fossil fuel and that fertilizer
through the Strait of Hormuz. It's European and Asian allies. So, he's hearing from a lot of people.
The one thing I want to add to this, Christiane, and I think you'd understand this, when we were negotiating with the Iranians, if we went out
prematurely and talked up the concessions that we were getting, what we would hear from Iranian negotiators is what kind of problems we were
creating for them with the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Now, I think the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in control of Iran.
And so, every time Trump says something or posts something online that is premature and that suggests an Iranian concession that hasn't been made, my
guess is that those Iranian negotiators in Islamabad get a call from the IRGC saying, what are you doing? And then that, you know, unwinds that
progress. And so, Trump's incapacity to kind of stay quiet through this diplomacy, I think, is part of the reason that we're not at a deal yet.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And of course, you know, Trump doing that publicly and his right-wing flank also attacking him, right? The right-wing senators or
those who are even, you know, further hardline on this whole issue than him. But, you know, you just said something really important and
interesting and we kind of know, but wow, talk about, you know, a reverse decision.
You've just said the IRGC is in control of Iran. This was not the case before this war started. So, when you think of the big picture, what do you
think the post-war Iran looks like? First of all, the whole idea of coming to the rescue of the people, and many did and still do, hope that the
bombing would have dislodged -- I'm talking about from inside, dislodged this regime, but it hasn't. So, what do you think, big picture?
RHODES: I think big picture is that you're going to have a more militarized and hardline Iranian government on the back end of this war.
And you know better than anybody, Christiane, the complexity of that regime. It was a kind of negotiation between the IRGC and a political
leadership and a clerical leadership overseen by a supreme leader.
Well, when you decapitate the regime by assassinating the supreme leader and you create an existential threat to that regime, the IRGC are the ones
who emerged both to crack down on the populace, but also, they're the ones who controlled the Strait. The IRGC are the ones that closed the Strait of
Hormuz. So, they're the ones who've generated the leverage, both on the United States and in terms of the possibility of generating additional
revenue by tolling that Strait inside of Iran.
It also stands to reason that when you create an existential crisis in Iran, and this is why I never thought military regime change made any
sense, the people with the most guns are going to be the people most powerful in the country, and that's the IRGC.
So, tragically, I think a regime change war that was launched on the basis of being helpful, although I'm not sure that was really the purpose, I
think has led to a worse outcome for the Iranian people.
AMANPOUR: And of course, a lot of this was powered by the view from Israel, not only the Mossad who told the prime minister there and who told
the president in the United States that if we do this and decapitate that, we will get regime change very quickly, and you've read the whole
hullabaloo over this mad caper to put Ahmadinejad, who you remember well, because he was president when you were in office there with President
Obama.
[13:10:00]
Perhaps, as I've said, the worst of the worst of a bad bunch. Hated in the rest of the world for what he said, what he did, and the threats he made.
Now, in the big picture regarding the Middle East, we're hearing from experts. I spoke to Danny Citrinowicz. You may remember he was an Iran
expert in the intelligence community in Israel. And he said that this whole thing in one fell swoop has essentially ruined and collapsed U.S. and
Israeli deterrence against Iran, because Iran has faced down these superpowers and has not capitulated and has not been defeated.
RHODES: That's exactly right. And first of all, totally fanciful, this idea. First, we heard it was Reza Pahlavi was going to move in and take
over, then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you know, two dizzying New York Times reports. Look, the reality is that was fanciful thinking. I personally kind
of felt like the goal was more regime collapse and then just see what happens.
But here's where we are. We are in a circumstance where, because they've demonstrated that they can shut down the Strait of Hormuz and paralyze the
global economy, they now have a deterrent without having a nuclear weapon. That's a new dynamic in the region.
Secondly, and really importantly, Christiane, I think the Iranians know that America is very unlikely to attack them again. They saw how this war
was received politically in the United States and around the world. Can you envision an American president, even Donald Trump, launching another war in
Iran in one year or two years and three years? That seems highly unlikely to me. They also see support for Israel diminishing in the United States,
which makes it less likely that the United States would jump into another war with Israel, as they did in the 12-day war.
And so, if you remove that threat of the likelihood of American military action and you add the capacity of Iran to shut down the Strait, that's a
lot of deterrence. And I think other countries like the Gulf Arab states are going to adjust to a new regional reality in which they may not like
Iran, but they may feel like they have to make their own deals with Iran.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Look, the Obama administration confronted the issue of the Middle East, and it's basically accepted that you sort of pulled back a
little bit with the pivot to Asia and hoping that the Middle East would resolve itself with American help to get a two-state solution and all of
that. Clearly that didn't work, and you've got an even more radical Israeli government, and I mean that word because you've got it flanked and run by
extremists who have no interest in a Palestinian State, and in fact now are talking about the Gazafication of just about everything in the vicinity,
whether it's Lebanon, whether it's the West Bank, whether it's still Gaza.
And I wonder what you think is going to happen there, particularly vis-a- vis the United States. Let me just quote for you. You've probably read it. But Senator Chris Van Hollen has written in The New York Times, the status
quo is unacceptable. He says, it's past time that we use our leverage to end the occupation and achieve two states with full political and legal
rights for all.
If you were back in the White House, do you think that that would be something that your administration would push for now?
RHODES: I do. And look, I mean, we should talk for a second here. I worry a lot with the direction that the Iran War is going. You have the potential
-- or you're going to have to have an Israeli election later this year. Netanyahu has not achieved his objectives in Iran. I worry that the
escalation that we've already seen in Lebanon could coincide with escalation back into Gaza or escalation even further in the West Bank as
Netanyahu tries to do his kind of far-right politics heading into that election cycle.
And so, the capacity for an Iran War to kind of be a frozen conflict and then to have Israel escalating in Lebanon, in the West Bank, in Gaza,
perhaps in southern Syria again, I think that's a very real possibility. And so, I think an American administration that is serious about that would
not be providing military assistance or sales to an Israeli government that is disregarding not only American advice but, frankly, any recipe for peace
and stability in the region.
And then if you're serious about Palestinian rights, you have to do what Senator Van Hollen says. You have to back that up by saying there's going
to be a path. We're willing to entertain recognition. And, frankly, and he alluded to this in his article, if the two-state solution is totally
impossible, you have to explore the pursuit of other outcomes. You know, can -- what can you do to protect equal rights for Palestinians inside of
Israel?
But unless and until the United States is willing to use leverage on the Israeli government, that's not going to change. The truth is that we
haven't really used leverage, not under successive administrations, and that leverage is not providing military assistance or selling weapon
systems to Israel.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: I mean, who could read the future? But certainly, the view from the United States is changing, both in the Democratic and Republican Party,
at least in the -- you know, with the people around the country.
I want to turn to your book, your new book, about America itself. It's titled "All We Say," and you took 15 speeches and looked historically and
chose them very carefully as to what they said about America back then and now. It's basically, you say, the battle for American identity.
Let's talk about -- you tell me, who do you start with and what is the premise throughout the arc of those 15 speeches?
RHODES: Yes. So, I wanted to understand what's happening now by understanding the history of the debate we've had in this country. And I
start with Benjamin Franklin because the speech that he authored that was a closing argument at the Constitutional Convention did not defend the
Constitution. It defended compromise. It said if a bunch of people are going to come together in a room with different interests, different views,
different prejudices, then we are not going to have a union without compromise.
That made the country possible, but it was a starting point for this competition and this conflict we've had ever since because the things we
compromised over were fundamental, everything from human slavery to who has the full rights of citizenship to the role of immigration and how people
are naturalized in the United States.
And so, then I essentially trace the argument that we've been having ever since through politicians, through activists, and really it comes down to
two stories. You know, one about a kind of inherited exceptionalism. We are -- you know, as a white Christian nation that are the inheritors of a
Western view of supremacy, and yes, other people can be here, but they have to kind of be subordinate to that identity versus a more progressive story
about expanding rights to more people, the abolitionist movement, the suffrage movement, the civil rights movement. I go through all of those.
And frankly, I think right now, part of the reason that American politics is so intense and disorientating is because, first of all, one side of that
competition is trying to declare it over. Donald Trump has essentially said, nope, the story ends with me and with my ideology.
And at the same time, I also feel, Christiane, that we've lost the capacity to have speeches that aim to adjudicate these questions and persuade, you
know, to go back and to look at how FDR talked about the purpose of America being for freedoms, or Martin Luther King painting a picture of a dream
that people could believe in in multiracial democracy, or even an Obama and a Reagan who had very different politics but had a kind of moral grounding
for how they built their coalitions through words. We've kind of lost that ability to talk to and listen to one another.
AMANPOUR: And yet, there is a lot of talk where they shove down our throats both verbally and on social media by leaders as well as just, you
know, ordinary people. I want to use excerpts of two speeches that epitomize what you've just talked about.
One, your former boss, President Obama, before the election when he was forced to respond. It was famously called the race speech. In 2008 when he
had to respond to negative publicity after his pastor said some stuff. This is what Obama told the nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, THEN-U.S. DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we
cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different
stories but we hold common hopes, that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place but we all want to move in the same direction
towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And, Ben, I'm actually going to quickly play the Trump excerpt that I have and then you can discuss it. I don't know whether you had a
hand in writing the race speech but we'll talk about that. But Trump then in his second inaugural talks about, you know, the exceptionalism that
you're talking about, particularly in the wake of having that failed assassination attempt against him and how he feels he was handpicked by
God. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The journey to reclaim our republic has not been an easy one, that I can tell you. Those who wish to stop our cause
have tried to take my freedom and indeed to take my life. Just a few months ago in a beautiful Pennsylvania field an assassin's bullet ripped through
my ear. But I felt then and believe even more so now that my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Discuss, Ben Rhodes, because they are both very powerful speakers. President Obama was famously, you know, motivating and Trump, he
speaks and people listen and follow him.
RHODES: So, those are the last two chapters of the book, those two speeches.
[13:20:00]
And look, I'd say about Obama, I tell the story of being on the speech writing team for that speech, and Obama got a draft and he stayed up the
entire night and the next morning we get a document that is completely rewritten. And it was the most personal reckoning with race that he'd done.
But I also -- in each chapter, I tell the story, not just of the speech, but of the life story of the person who gave it and the movements that fed
into that. And what Obama is speaking to in that race speech is the long, you know, 200 and -- at that point, 235-year effort to reconcile our
differences. That we have to accept that this country has people of different races, of different beliefs, of, you know, even different
prejudices. And he's very candid about both the prejudice and the inequality and the resentments that exist within the black and white
communities in the United States.
But what he's saying, he's making a case in that speech for, for common identity, that we are a multiracial democracy where we work out our
differences through politics. And frankly, if we could build coalitions across races, we could solve the problems that had festered for so long.
And they were hurting the working class of both black, white and brown people in the United States. So, that situates him in this continuum in my
book that runs all the way back to the founding, but through the abolitionists and civil rights movements, as well as other movements.
Trump, on the other hand, he does emerge out of certain strains in American history. You know, I look at the America First movement in the 1930s, a
kind of paranoid isolationism. There's a populism that has always been there of resentment of certain elites and establishments in the United
States. And there's certainly always been anti-immigrant and xenophobic strains throughout American history.
What is different about Trump from all of American history is the clip that you just played, Christiane. Never before. I have a Ronald Reagan speech,
for instance, in the book. Could you imagine Ronald Reagan saying that he was saved by God to save America? Trump situates himself outside of the
boundaries. He agreed upon lines of political competition.
What Franklin was saying is we have to design a system that allows us to compete and to change the country going forward. But you have to play
within the rule of law. You have to play within accepted boundaries.
And so, why I accept the legitimacy of many things that I disagree with that Trump stands for and represents. I think what I cannot accept and what
I think is so, again, disorienting about this moment is the kind of extra- legal nature of aspects of the Trump presidency. The law doesn't apply to me.
I mean, look at the Iran War. Like there's no effort to situate that in any legal basis, right? Look at many of the things he's doing. So, I think
Obama and Trump kind of -- I ended the book with them because they capture perfectly this kind of two opposing stories. Although I think Trump is the
one who's taken it a bit farther than anyone else before him.
AMANPOUR: And it's a really fascinating look at who gets to choose to be an American, to call themselves American. So, really interesting. And
thanks for your obvious perspective on what's going on in the world right now. Ben Rhodes, thank you.
RHODES: Thanks, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And later in the program, as the IDF intensifies its strikes against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, I asked conflict resolution
specialist Oliver McTernan about his recent fact-finding trip to Israel and the occupied West Bank.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, a possible U.S.-Iran peace deal, as we were talking about, could upend years of campaigning by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu, for war and regime change there, just as he campaigns to convince voters that he is still, quote, "Israel's Mr. Security."
Meantime, violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank is escalating and aid into Gaza remains far below what's needed and what was
promised. Hamas still refuses to disarm. Rebuilding remains on hold.
So, is there any hope for conflict resolution on the horizon? Oliver McTernan is an expert on all of that, and he's director of the NGO Forward
Thinking. He's joining me now. Oliver McTernan, welcome back to the program.
OLIVER MCTERNAN, CO-FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, FORWARD THINKING: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And you have just returned from the region and you've been all around. So, tell me how you read what's happening right now. Have, you
know, ideas, attitudes changed, whether it's on the Israeli side, on the Palestinian side, in the Arab countries you might have visited around
there?
MCTERNAN: Well, Christiane, I think we have to emphasize the fact that the whole situation is very much interwoven. What happens with Iran, America
and Israel will very much impact on the situation in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. You can't separate them.
And I think what we have to keep in mind is that we have now Donald Trump caught in a war of choice, which he obviously needs to get out of and needs
to get out of looking a winner. But you have the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, facing elections also in September. And therefore to, I
would say, guarantee a chance of success in those elections. He needs to keep the war in Iran going. And if he fails to convince Trump of that, then
he needs to escalate what's happening in Lebanon and Gaza.
So, as I say, we've got to see it as a sort of mosaic. Just it's intertwined. It's -- it come -- they're not isolated. It's two leaders, I
would say, needing to come out of the situation looking winners. And I fear that is not going to be possible.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me just play what Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday about the Lebanon intervention that he's doing and what might be
happening, you know, from here on in, because they've essentially broken the ceasefire that they were holding. And it just seems to be back to an
all-out war on Hezbollah positions. And there's been all sorts of, you know, calls to evacuate places like Tyre, a huge place in Lebanon and the
like. So, here's what Netanyahu said yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are deepening our operation in Lebanon. The IDF is operating with large forces
on the ground and is taking control of strategic areas. We are fortifying the security zone in order to protect the communities of northern Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, that's what he says publicly. What do you hear from either the people who you spoke to in Israel, including -- I know you talk to some
government types, some parliamentarians, as well as civil society, what are you hearing? And even from Lebanon on this?
MCTERNAN: Well, first of all, I think we have to keep in mind that when the terrible events of October the 7th happened, some in Israel saw it as
an opportunity to introduce what they said, the third commonwealth, clear Gaza, clear the West Bank and clear everyone south of the Litani River.
Therefore, you could have a new state from the river to the sea, which was a Jewish state in in reality, as well as in principle.
Now, that I think that goal has not been overlooked or overshadowed. And it's not just the Ben-Gvirs and Smotrichs that have been pushing it, there
are people deep within Likud who would buy into it very much.
Now, Netanyahu also is coming on the pressure from the families that returned to northern Israel. Last year, I witnessed the when the area was
evacuated, the exchange of fire, the rockets coming over. One can understand that pressure. But I think the problem is the mentality. Unless
there is a change of mindset, both in Donald Trump and in Benjamin Netanyahu and their followers, basically that you don't solve these issues
by force, you don't solve them by imposition. They have the idea and follow it and they've said it openly. Peace comes through strength.
[13:30:00]
Just look at history. We know that's not true. Peace has to come and will only come when people are regarded with equality, when the core causes of
these conflicts are addressed. And that is essentially, coming from the Jewish tradition of the prophets, is essentially when justice is present.
You can't have peace without justice.
AMANPOUR: You know, Oliver, I've had people on the program, Israelis and others, who say out now, kind of what you're saying, that the actual big
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which is unresolved, remains the biggest existential crisis for Israel, and that there will not be peace
in the region until that is resolved.
So, you have done so much work on this. You've talked to the political wings of Hamas. You've talked to, you know, the PA. You talk to the
Israelis. You talk to the Jewish. You talk to all the stakeholders. Where do you see, at this time, given the fact that there's an election, given
the fact that, you know, they believe in mowing the lawn and all the rest of it, and this is a once-in-an-opportunity time, where do you see the --
if there are any, any grass shoots for conflict resolution?
MCTERNAN: Well, again, I talked about the need for a change of mindset before making progress, recognizing the core issues, the need for equality,
but that won't happen unless there is also, I fear, a change of mindset in the West. Too often, we've been protective of Israel.
We haven't respected Israel enough to call it out when it overlooks the essential norms that govern or should govern international relationships,
relationships with people that grew out of the terrible horrors of the Second World War. We ignored them.
And I always remember what Lapid said in '22, November '22, when he was foreign minister addressing the United Nations General Assembly. He said,
rightly, to speak in hate terms of Jews is antisemitic. Then he goes on to say to treat Israel different from any other country is antisemitic. And I
said, thank you, Lapid, but we need to put that into practice.
We need to realize no one can delegitimize the State of Israel. It's a reality. But it risks delegitimizing itself if it thinks it can act with
impunity, with total disregard, especially with regard to Gaza now, of the Geneva Conventions and the obligations of an occupying power, and equally
its obligations to adhere to the norms that grew out of the Second World War in relationship to Lebanon and other surrounding countries. You can't
behave with impunity and then secure your place, your rightful place within a region. So, I think there needs to be two changes of mindset before we
see any significant progress.
AMANPOUR: You know, that's going to take some leverage, as you say, and it's hard to see where that leverage is going to come from, from those who
actually do have the leverage. I was speaking to my previous guest, Ben Rhodes, President Obama's former Deputy National Security adviser, and we
were talking about Senator Chris Van Hollen, who said there needs to be a change in how we deal with our close ally Israel to make sure that there is
this justice, peace and security for all in that region, as you've just been outlining.
But you just were talking about Yair Lapid, the head of one of the parties, who's gone into a partnership with Naftali Bennett to challenge -- you
know, contest the next elections against Benjamin Netanyahu. None of them are talking about the possibility of a Palestinian State. In fact, the
opposite. They read the polls, they talk to people on the ground, and there, I don't know whether it's just electioneering, but right now there
seems to be no hope even from the so-called opposition to Netanyahu.
MCTERNAN: I think we're facing two problems. First of all, Israel is in a very traumatized state. The politicians you talk to, whether they recognize
it or not, you see clearly they're traumatized by the events and the prolongation of these wars. But that leads, I think, to a fear, and a fear
is the worst, worst adviser, you might say, in circumstances like this.
[13:35:00]
But the second issue that we get from inside, talking with people we've known many years who are officials, advisers, chiefs of staff, they will
say there is no strategy or strategic vision for the future of Israel. It's very much at the moment, it doesn't matter, OK, Netanyahu is pursuing one
area, if Benazir or Lapid take over, there is no significant change going to happen.
And I think what is needed is Israel to have a period of internal reflection to see itself and its role in the region. It can play an
important part in the region, but that won't come through ultimatums. I think the stupidity, if I may say, of President Trump's statement where he
said it was mandatory for states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, even Pakistan to accept the Abraham Accords.
The Abraham Accords are a root part of the problem, because they're not a recognition of the right of the Palestinians to have their own state, their
own government, and be recognized as a sovereign people. Equals in the area. That -- it's a big task, but I think we keep avoiding it. We're
fearful of speaking truth, and I think the one thing I've learned, Israelis only respect you if you are truthful and blunt.
They'll use all sorts of mechanisms of course to manipulate a situation, but I think it is wrong-sighted, I think it is undermining the security of
its country, not actually guaranteeing security when we get this undermining of facts.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And look, you also talked to the Palestinian Authority. I mean, just recently the Israeli Defense Minister Katz said Israel is
working towards voluntary emigration of Gazans, i.e., continuing this idea that they should leave. But also, on the other hand, in the West Bank,
Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the PA, just has had the first Fatah Congress. Basically, no fresh voices, still no presidential election. You
know, he's just tightening his grip. He's 90-plus years old, consolidating power. Even his son, 64-year-old, Yasser Abbas, just elected in what many
people are calling a NEPO election, to a position on the Fatah's top body.
If they, the legitimate Palestinians who've recognized the Israelis and who are -- you know, Israel's right to exist and the peace process, et cetera,
if they can't move forward, who's able to move forward this ball for the Palestinians?
MCTERNAN: Well, I think there are a number of people in the West Bank and in Gaza who are very capable and competent and could provide the leadership
that is essential at this time. The problem is, and here again, I think the E.U. and America are a great part to blame for this. We go for the easy
option. We go for a system. The Oslo Agreement was a terrible failure. It's been used to prolong the conflict rather than end it.
And rather than recognizing that in 2006, seeing the Palestinian people have spoken through what Jimmy Carter said, a fair and objective election,
we chose no, we want to manipulate the situation. We want to put people who haven't got real constituency to guide the way forward. It won't work. It's
not just the Israelis are failing and the surrounding Arab states, but I think also the E.U., many European countries, even those who speak up and
recognize the Palestinian State, never act on the recognition. They never actually push to ensure that there is real reform, elections and a real
national unity government in Palestine. We haven't promoted that. We pay lip service to it, but we don't promote it.
AMANPOUR: And as far as we can see, the so-called Board of Peace hasn't done much either. Oliver McTernan, thank you very much. And we'll be right
back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, House Republicans are pushing a 25 percent tax on the money that immigrants send overseas.
And Haiti would be hit especially hard. That country is grappling with crises from natural disasters, gang warfare and a full-blown humanitarian
emergency. And it relies on remittances from the U.S. especially following the gutting of USAID.
Ethar El-Katatney has been covering this issue closely. And she joins Hari Sreenivasan to explain its devastating impact.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Ethar El-Katatney, thanks so much for joining us. You are the editor-in-
chief of a site called Documented that focuses on all kinds of immigration issues in New York City. I guess tell me how the remittance issue, the
restrictions got on your radar and why they're so important.
ETHAR EL-KATATNEY, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, DOCUMENTED: Yes. Thank you so much for having me. So, at Documented, we cover, as you said, immigrants in New York
City in several languages. So, we write in English, but we also do in Spanish, Chinese and Haitian Creole. Our audience are immigrants and we
look at issues that are important to immigrants.
What makes our journalism a little bit different is we actually source our stories and issues that our communities care about from the community,
right? So, they send us questions on WeChat for the Chinese and WhatsApp for Spanish. And we're on several platforms for our Caribbean community.
So, we started getting questions, right, about what this actually might mean for them.
So, remittances is a huge inflow of income to so many countries around the world. There's $900 billion of remittances globally sent. And the United
States is actually the biggest sender of remittances worldwide. Nearly $100 billion of those remittances come from the United States. And New York City
is actually 10 percent of that.
So, these remittances are a huge lifeline for immigrant communities. It's actually a big source of why people come to the United States, right? They
come here in order to make money to send to their families back home. So, it came on our radar when the administration announced a new 1 percent tax
on remittances.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, break that down for us. What actually changed and when?
EL-KATATNEY: So, remittances are typically not taxed because, again, they support global economies. They're a big source of GDP. And they actually
are higher than foreign direct investment in many kind of countries. So, the U.S. typically does not tax remittances. But immigrants actually pay
taxes, right, to send money through, you know, whether it's Western Union or any kind of similar services.
One important note here is that nearly three-quarters of any remittances sent are cash-based, which kind of leads you to understand that they're
typically immigrants who don't. Usually sometimes they're unbanked or most of the times they're unbanked.
So, out of the money that's been sent, to take New York City as an example, that $10 billion that's sent, $500 billion was paid just in fees, right?
So, an extra 1 percent tax, even though that seems little, it's actually nearly $100 million, right? So, if an immigrant, let's say, is sending, you
know, $100 to their family or $200, it's only $10 or $20. But for their countries back home, that's literally groceries for a week. So, a tax that
you put on those remittances is severely going to impact immigrant families.
SREENIVASAN: So, you know, there's been a separate developing push to restrict transfer specifically to Haiti. There was a post on March 2nd by
the Department of Homeland Security. It said on X, American dollars should not be used to subsidize foreign economies, claiming that Haitians were,
quote, "taking $6.1 billion from America" and pledging to keep fighting to end this. What was the reaction from the Haitian communities that read your
publications and ask you questions?
EL-KATATNEY: Yes. So, like I said, we publish in Haitian Creole. We have kind of a TikTok channel. We get questions a lot. And the kind of sad thing
about this is Haiti isn't even one of the top 10 countries that get remittances. So, to give you some context, Mexico got more than $50 billion
last year. Haiti only gets between, in the last few years, around $3 to $5 billion a year.
[13:45:00]
But remittances have increased. So, in 2025, there was actually a 20 percent increase in remittances sent from the United States to Haiti. But
that's primarily because the situation, the humanitarian situation in Haiti is so difficult. So, to kind of backtrack a little bit, Haiti has been
under a series in the last kind of 15 years, crisis after crisis, right? It was hit in 2010 with a huge earthquake that killed 300,000 people,
displaced 1.5 million people. And that was followed by a cholera outbreak, which actually was traced to U.N. peacekeepers. They had two huge
hurricanes. Their president was assassinated a few years ago.
So, all of that kind of contributes to out of the 12 million people living in Haiti, nearly half of them are under severe risk of starvation. They
need humanitarian assistance. And of those 6 million, 3.3 million are children. So, the situation in Haiti is dire. So, remittances are a
lifeline. They actually constitute nearly a fifth of the entire country's GDP, right? And the majority of that, that 70 percent of those, actually
come from the United States.
So, Haitians in the United States support their families back home from starvation. And we've actually heard that from our Haitian members, that
it's not about I'm sending money because, you know, it's extra. I'm sending money so my family doesn't starve.
And coupled with the fact that the U.S. administration has cut off U.S. aid, right, in January 2025, there's no more U.S. aid going to Haiti.
They've banned Haiti. It's on the list of countries actually to allow immigrant visas to the United States. This kind of adds to the kind of the
layers of the troubles that Haiti is going through. This extra ban to ban remittances completely, not just a 1 percent tax, but to ban remittances,
would literally lead to the starvation and death, I would say, of many, many Haitians.
SREENIVASAN: What is wrong with the argument that says, look, this $6 billion is leaving the U.S. economy. It's going somewhere else. What are
people missing about that?
EL-KATATNEY: So, the United States typically has never taxed remittances because it allows part of kind of the United States policy to want
countries to flourish, right? You want these GDPs of countries to grow. You want economies to grow. And if the administration wants to decrease
immigration, right, one of the ways you do that is making sure the people in those countries have less reason to leave. So, if they are getting
remittances, you are then supporting them, allowing those people to stay in their countries because they are getting remittances from their family
members back home. That's one.
Two, they are a significant source, even higher than foreign direct investment. So, globally across the world, that $900 billion, it literally
lifts up economies, allows people to invest in their homes, in their families, and to build their countries. So, what's also missing from this
argument is that this is immigrants' hard-earned money, right? There is often a rhetoric of immigrants, you know, somehow not working for this
money, that they aren't actually deserving of it.
But this money that is earned by Haitians, it's money they make here by working, most often legally, in services and in industries that we need.
They send some of their money back home to support their families, but they also spend significantly here in the United States.
To give you an example of Springfield, Ohio, right, because this comes up a lot in the media, of a city that was less than 60,000 people had suffered
for five decades without actual growth. And when the influx of just over 10,000 Haitians, it literally lifted up the entire economy, right? They
filled jobs that had spent years, years in some cases not being filled. They bought homes. They invested their money. They lifted up the entire
economy, right? And this goes back to obviously immigration being good for the U.S. economy.
So, again, these remittances support families, they support countries, and it actually benefits the United States by making sure that people here are
contributing their money to both the U.S. economy and in paying taxes.
SREENIVASAN: So, what are you hearing in terms of the impact that the existing restrictions on the 1 percent tax and possibly what's coming down
the line, what would that do to a Haitian family in Port-au-Prince if the money did not come from New York or somewhere else in the United States?
EL-KATATNEY: So, the majority of remittances going to Haiti do actually come from the United States, right, and primarily from those who are here
legally. And really what we hear is that remittances that are sent to Haiti stop families from starving. A 1 percent tax on its own is already
devastating enough to immigrants, but a complete ban to a country that is already so decimated by political instability, humanitarian instability,
literally half the country needs humanitarian assistance.
What we've seen over the last year and a half is what that kind of fear and that perception of what might happen, how that's actually having immigrants
here change their lives.
[13:50:00]
So, even though it hasn't happened yet, you've seen people being afraid of a digital footprint. So, even Haitians who might be in a position to have
had a bank account in order to avoid that 1 percent tax, they're now thinking, well, if I put my information online, I'm afraid somehow ICE will
come find me, right? So, you've seen people come further underground. You know, they don't want to go to the doctor. They don't want to send their
kids to school. But also, they're not frequenting businesses, right?
Like we interview a lot of people in Flatbush, which is kind of little Caribbean here in New York City. People aren't going out to restaurants.
So, it's not just that they're not going to work or they're afraid. They're actually then businesses down, right? Restaurants are down. The U.S.
economy and New York City economy will actually be hurt.
Again, there are between 330,000 to 350,000 Haitians legally in the United States. Two-thirds of them are working. They contribute taxes. They
contribute, you know, buying homes. They live here. So, it's not just those people who are impacted, but it's millions and millions of people in Haiti.
SREENIVASAN: So, is there a reason why Haiti specifically seems to have a bullseye on its back from the administration? I mean, I'm thinking back to,
you know, the false rumors about them eating cats and dogs in Springfield. And that became part of the sort of political conversation in America. And
you're looking at, you know, also trying to figure out how to change the temporary protected status. Because members of the administration say, hey,
this was supposed to work. First word is temporary. This earthquake was 15 years ago. We should be sending people back to Haiti.
EL-KATATNEY: Yes. Well, the situation, I would actually say, if not worse, is definitely not better. Like I said, the two earthquakes, two hurricanes,
assassination attempts, gangs taking over, that TPS is a protected status, that kind of a lot of people fall under that.
But this administration, you know, in part of the rhetoric around immigrants and the othering that happens, Haiti is an easy target, right?
It is an easy country to target for many different kind of demographics, all the way back, as you mentioned, from the kind of presidential debate.
That in order to kind of make, again, some of the rhetoric around, you know, immigrants eat strange foods, you know, they are violent, they take
away your jobs.
It is countries that fit within that rhetoric. The penalties that have been leveled at Haitians, even though the majority are here legally, work and
pay taxes, banning them from immigrant visas, cutting off U.S. aid, and now wanting to end temporary protected status, really does hit a community
that, again, contributes in all the ways.
But, yes, it fits within specific immigrant groups are more welcome than others. The Trump administration, for example, just announced that they
want to increase white South Africans refugees. You know, the president recently just said he wants to allow 10,000, right, from South Africa to
attend here, and specifically white, for racial persecution.
So, that kind of, you know, raises the question of why some groups and not other groups, and Haiti's contribution to the United States economy has
been undeniable. Again, nearly $6 billion contributed to the U.S. economy. They are more likely to be paying taxes, $1.5 billion just in the United
States.
SREENIVASAN: I don't know if you've reached out to the State Department. How do they explain, on the one hand, wanting people to self-deport, and
then, on the other hand, having a do not travel warning for Haiti, for anybody else from America, saying, hey, you know, there's still gangs that
control a lot of Port-au-Prince, it's not a safe place to go?
EL-KATATNEY: It's very difficult to get comment, and when we do, again, they kind of point to statistics and point to things where kind of in
context, yes, it does seem like on some level or some framework that there are numbers that have gone down.
But again, to your point, the fact that Haiti is still do not visit, it is still, there are reports, the U.N. itself kind of talking about, you know,
5,000 killed, how many have been displaced in the last year and a half. The numbers clearly point to a humanitarian situation. Those numbers that I
just quoted on kind of starvation and children that needing help, that the situation in Haiti is still as horrible as it is.
And again, sometimes this is just, you know, dog whistling for a specific audience, but beyond that kind of March announcement, even though nothing
has actually happened yet, right, like we could wake up tomorrow and this actually have gone to play.
But again, the impact on Haitians, that actually leads to self-deport, right? We've talked to so many in our community over this last year and a
half, immigrants from Haiti, other Caribbean countries, and the wider immigrant population, where just this kind of looming limbo, right, TPS,
that at any moment, the back and forth, the seesawing that's happened in a year and a half has caused so many of them to be like, we can't live like
this anymore. We're just going to leave ourselves. There are other impacts of proposed policies that actually do happen, even if that policy doesn't
actually happen.
SREENIVASAN: Editor-in-chief of the site Documented, Ethar El-Katatney, thanks so much for your time.
EL-KATATNEY: Thank you so much for having me.
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And finally, scientists have made a big discovery, albeit one no bigger than a golf ball. Deep-sea researchers have identified a new tiny
blue octopus near the Galapagos Islands, a region, of course, that's famed for diverse wildlife and Charles Darwin's discovery of evolution. The
creature was seen nearly 6,000 feet below the water's surface, and its striking blue color is very rare. As cute as this little octopus might be,
these creatures are also intelligent animals, and this one clearly prefers to keep a low profile and away from anyone's fishing net.
That is it for 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. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
