Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with CNN Political and National Security Analyst and The New York Times National Security Correspondent David Sanger; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Iraq James Jeffrey; Interview with Yale Humanitarian Research Lab Executive Director Nathaniel Raymond; Interview with Sudanese Political Analyst Kholood Khair; Interview with "The Uninhabitable Earth" Author David Wallace-Wells. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 07, 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.

Trump joins NATO leaders in Turkey for a high-stakes summit. Can Europe keep the alliance together and the president on side? I asked former

diplomat James Jeffrey and the New York Times national security correspondent, David Sanger.

Then, grave fears for half a million people in Sudan as the U.N. warns another humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding while the world looks away. I

speak to analyst Kholood Khair and human rights investigator Nathaniel Raymond.

Plus, a court ruling with major implications for France's political future, what it means for Marine Le Pen's presidential ambitions. We'll have the

very latest.

And later in the show, extreme heat waves shatter records across the globe. Climate writer, David Wallace-Wells, joins me to discuss how the world must

adapt to this dangerous new normal.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

An alliance under threat. NATO leaders are gathered in Turkey for a summit that will test whether unity can hold after a year of deepening tensions

between the U.S. and its allies. President Trump already renewing his push to take control of Greenland again, doubling down on demands for allies to

step up their defense spending, and voicing his disappointment over Europe's lack of support for his war in Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: In a way, I was testing people. I was testing to see whether or not they'd be there, because I've long said that

we help them, but I'm not sure that they'd be there for us. And Italy turned us down. And Germany turned us down. And France turned us down. And

it's OK. But, you know, why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and they're not there for us?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: But beyond the summit lies a bigger question. Is NATO prepared for a future with less support from Washington? The stakes are high for

Ukraine's President Zelenskyy, who is urgently seeking increased military assistance after Russia launched one of its largest attacks on Kyiv in

recent months. And it's not just Ukraine. There are real fears of a Russian incursion into the Baltics, with Putin possibly looking to test NATO's

borders at a moment of disunity.

For more on this, let's bring in New York Times National Security Correspondent David Sanger and former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, James

Jeffrey. Welcome, both of you.

David, let me start with you. As this summit was just getting started, European leaders were telling you that the reality for the next several

years is, quote, "a gradually stronger Europe in a weaker NATO." How do you interpret that?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think that's

essentially accurate. The question is, can the gradually stronger Europe make up for the U.S. withdrawal, either physical withdrawal of troops?

There hasn't been much of that yet, but there's much of it hinted. And the concern that the United States is pulling back from its traditional role at

the center of NATO conventional defense. In other words, the Washington concept at this point is Europe takes more and more control of conventional

defense. The U.S. remains at the center of nuclear defense.

The problem is that every time the president settles on a strategy for this, he ends up undercutting their confidence of the Europeans that he is

actually willing to do this in an orderly, rational manner. So, last year, you'll remember, they agreed to spend 3.5 percent, the Europeans, European

members of NATO, 3.5 percent of their GNP on defense and an additional one and a half percent on infrastructure that would be related to that,

highways, so forth. The president said he was satisfied.

[13:05:00]

Today, he made it clear he wants that done even faster. In other words, it can't be -- can't unroll over the next 10 years. It must be done faster.

And as you suggested, he raised again American control of Greenland after they thought that they had tamped this down back in January.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. So, that is once again raising questions about how committed President Trump is not only to the NATO alliance, but to seizing

Greenland. This was something that many European leaders, that many NATO allies had been hoping the president has gotten over and was in the past.

And he's once again just raised this as something he continues to want to pursue.

Ambassador, let me turn to you, because obviously the venue here is notable. President Trump saying the only reason he really came was because

he was invited by the host, the host country. He has a warm relationship with President Erdogan.

First of all, it's hard to square that with his own secretary of state saying two weeks ago that this particular summit was going to be the most

consequential in NATO's history. But that aside, from the Erdogan perspective, what is it that he is seeking out of this relationship with

President Trump? Is it merely transactional and wanting those F-35 fighter jets?

JAMES JEFFREY, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY AND IRAQ: Thanks for having me. First of all, Trump would have gone to the summit no matter

where it was. But Trump is basically supporting NATO. He reversed a Secretary Hegseth's decision to pull 5,000 troops out of Poland a few weeks

ago. But he has to be apologetic about it. So, he keeps on raising these themes. I wouldn't have gone if it wasn't for my pal, Erdogan. I'm going to

think about Greenland again. But the point is, he's there. That's not enough, as David said correctly, to build up trust. But he is there.

Now, in terms of Erdogan, he wants recognition of his key role in Euro- Asian security, ranging from Iran to Gaza and North Africa, where Turkey plays a big military and diplomatic role, all the way up to Ukraine, where

Turkey probably has done more than any other country other than the United States under Joe Biden to help Ukraine, while at the same time keeping

channels open to Russia and pushing for a negotiated settlement, which is something I think he'll find a welcome audience in Trump.

So, Erdogan sees himself at the center of this thing. It's the first time NATO has ever met in Asia, that is Ankara, before when they met in Turkey.

It was in Istanbul in Europe. So, that has significance, too.

GOLODRYGA: So, Mr. Ambassador, do you think that he's played a positive role, been a positive factor, whether it's in the war in Gaza, whether the

war in Iran? And it does seem that you think that for the war in Ukraine.

JEFFREY: Most certainly, the war in Ukraine. One single, simple thing. He cut off any Russian reinforcements through the Dardanelles into the Black

Sea. It's otherwise a closed sea. And so, the Russian has basically lost the Black Sea to Ukraine.

And he has played a huge role lately, supported by the United States in the Caucasus, bringing together Armenia and Azerbaijan after a bit of fighting

that, with his help, his ally Azerbaijan-1, in Libya, pushing back against the Russians in 2018, and all around the region. He's a member of the Board

of Peace for Gaza, and he's been helpful in the negotiations with Iran. So, yes, he's a big player.

GOLODRYGA: So, David, let me get you to respond to that particular angle, because there are a number of members of the president's own party that

would have issue with the ambassador's interpretation here. And obviously, Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu has been very vocal about the role that

Erdogan has played, both in Gaza and the war there, and obviously, the war in Iran.

As it relates to these F-35 fighter jets, that is something that requires congressional approval, because there had been sanctions put on Turkey for

the purchase of those S-400s, the missile defense system, from Russia. And that is what the president today announced he was lifting, those sanctions.

Prime Minister Netanyahu was just on our air a few moments ago with my colleague Dana Bash, saying that he had mentioned and spoken with President

Trump a number of times, trying to push him against the sale of those F- 35s. President Trump hasn't committed to doing that yet. But in Prime Minister Netanyahu's view, he says that this really would upset the

regional balance that sort of is underpinned right now with Israeli air superiority that has always been sort of a policy of the United States. He

says that Turkey is a threat to Greece, to Cyprus, and to the State of Israel.

[13:10:00]

Is he right? Is Prime Minister Netanyahu right? Should the -- or do you think the president should lift the sanctions, and perhaps there's a

workaround to the sale of those F-35s?

SANGER: Well, you know, both things can be correct here. Ambassador Jeffrey has got just right, as he always does, the analysis of what Erdogan

has done in a helpful way in everything from Syria to the war in Ukraine and so forth.

And yet, he has also been a strong supporter of the cause in Gaza for the Palestinians, which has angered Prime Minister Netanyahu. He has had things

to say about the State of Israel that I think make the Israelis very nervous and have long led the Israelis to oppose giving them the -- giving

the Turks the most sophisticated fighter jet the U.S. has now, the F-35.

What's really fascinating about what's happened here with the F-35 -- and my colleague, Tyler Pager, and I wrote about this yesterday in The Times,

is that it was President Trump in his first term who cut off the sales of the F-35 to Turkey, and he did so because the Turks bought S-400s, as you

suggested, Bianna, from Russia.

So, imagine this. You have a NATO member buying anti-aircraft and anti- missile systems from the avowed adversary of NATO, Russia. And the concern was that these S-400s would be trained on the F-35s and would give the

Russians a really deep insight in how to defeat the stealth mechanisms of the F-35.

Now, President Trump in his second term has basically wanted to go undo what he did in the first term and sell them the F-35s. And he's instructed

his staff to do everything they can. And as you suggest, there are all kinds of congressional complications here. But the first thing is that the

law would require that the president and Secretary Hegseth certify that Turkey has given up those S-400s. And so, far, they have not. They haven't

deployed them, but they're still there.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. I think they've test-fired them once, but now they are reportedly still in shipping containers.

SANGER: That's right.

GOLODRYGA: There's talks about transporting them to a third-party country. Mr. Ambassador, we did hear President Trump say he was going to lift

sanctions on Turkey. Another country that he has spoken highly about in terms of their new leadership and lifting sanctions there is Syria.

And just today in Damascus, two IEDs went off at a hotel or near a hotel where President Macron of France was staying, and a number of people were

wounded. It is a notable visit because he is the first Western leader to visit since Assad's fall.

You were the U.S. envoy to Syria. President Trump really seems to have invested a lot in al-Sharaa, says he's the man for the job. At one point

even said that he should be sending in troops to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon and not Israel. Is the president right to be investing so much and to view

al-Sharaa as really a game changer for that country?

JEFFREY: Absolutely. I was also the envoy for the Coalition to Defeat ISIS, and I've been monitoring the ISIS attacks in Syria and a few in Iraq,

including what was probably the attacks today. They are down dramatically.

Just like the Kurds, and I'll come to them, al-Sharaa, when he was up in Idlib in the northwest with his organization, Hay'at al-Sham, which,

although it's an al-Qaeda offshoot, spent all of its time fighting Daesh or ISIS and the Assad regime very successfully. But right now, he is

integrating the Syrian Kurdish forces that we worked with that also have a PKK, Turkish terrorist background, into his army. They're very good. And

this all is being done in a coordinated three-way with Erdogan on his larger effort to bring in the Turkish Kurds. It's a quite significant

geopolitical step, but it's also an important security step.

Al-Sharaa is a good partner. We need a route to get the oil out of the Gulf. Other than the Straits of Hormuz, Syria is the obvious place. And I

think that if the can lift what is called the state-sponsored terrorism sanctions on Syria, which no longer have a real sense, we will be in a much

better shape to work with that country.

[13:15:00]

GOLODRYGA: David, so much really on the table here in terms of this NATO summit. Iran, this MOU, we're about halfway through the 60 days that this

MOU had been enforced for. Overnight, Iranian missiles hit two ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Again, there's a real question as to how long the

ceasefire can hold. And the president has expressed his animosity as recently as a few hours ago at NATO allies, who he said did not step up to

help or even offer to help the United States.

Given that, given everything we've discussed thus far, how much time and focus do you think will be devoted to what so many tell me is really the

most important thing NATO needs to focus on, is that it's its own self- defense and not only investing more in that, but investing correctly, specifically in drone technology and being capable to defend itself if, in

fact, Russia is able to reconstitute, as many analysts say they can, within five to six years once this war in Ukraine ends?

SANGER: I think you've raised a couple of key issues that NATO has got to go deal with at this. First, on Iran, I think it's pretty clear at this

point that we are paying the price for how hastily the 14-point plan that was approved last month was put together. Clearly, the Iranians did not

have the same view about the opening of the Strait as the Americans did.

And you've now seen, just in the past 24 hours, three attacks on shipping going through the Strait. That wasn't supposed to be happening a month into

this ceasefire with the new agreement. The follow-on negotiations so far for the bigger agreement, focusing on the nuclear program, have essentially

gone nowhere in the first month.

On the second point you raised, it's really critical that the Europeans think not only on how much they spend, but how they spend it. And I think

both the war in Ukraine and the war in Iran have made it clear that we are in an era of asymmetric warfare that the Europeans are not ready for and

that the United States may not be ready for.

And it focuses on the use of drones. You saw that in how the Iranians struck American bases in the Gulf. You've seen that in how the Russians and

the Ukrainians have made use of drone technology, the Ukrainians recently, to do huge damage. So, it would be good if we saw NATO actually focused on

those issues.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And not to mention whether or not NATO will step up and provide those crucial air defense systems and interceptors that Ukraine

says they desperately need.

SANGER: That's right.

GOLODRYGA: David Sanger, Ambassador James Jeffrey -

SANGER: If they can find it.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and produce them quickly enough. Thank you so much. Really appreciate the conversation.

And still to come for U.S., horror in Sudan. We look at one of the worst humanitarian crises on Earth and what can be done to stop it.

And later in the program, extreme weather is becoming more frequent, more destructive, and more expensive. We examine the growing costs of the

climate crisis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:00]

GOLODRYGA: This is not a drill. It is a red alert. That is the warning from a United Nations official urging the world to act before another

atrocity unfolds in Sudan. Half a million people are trapped in the city of El Obeid, which is endured -- has endured weeks of intense fighting between

the Sudanese Rapid Support Forces and the National Army.

It's the latest flashpoint in a civil war that has devastated the country for three years, triggering the world's largest displacement crisis. And

there's a reason it's become known as the Forgotten War. Previous warnings have done little to quell the bloodshed.

Just last year, thousands of people were killed during the capture of the city of El Fasher. Massacres, the U.N. says, bore the hallmarks of

genocide.

Joining me now are Sudanese political analysts Kholood Khair and Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale

School of Public Health. Welcome back to the show, both of you.

Nathaniel, let me start with you. The U.S. State Department just last week warned that mass atrocities could be imminent in El Obeid, and I know that

your lab has documented at least 11 fuel stations bombed in four months, plus the electrical substation, water pumps now without fuel, hospitals

without power, and civilians unable to flee. From your evidence, is that assault already underway?

NATHANIEL RAYMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUMANITARIAN RESEARCH LAB, YALE: No, it is not. We, at this point, do not identify signs of an imminent

attack by Rapid Support Forces and think they could wait until as late as the end of the rainy season, which is underway now. But in the meantime,

they're doing their classic business model, which is using suicide drones to basically destroy what's left of the civilian infrastructure and starve

and steal the water from civilians, forcing them into humanitarian crisis, which is already underway.

GOLODRYGA: Kholood, you've said that the battle for El Obeid is about power, land, and money. If this city falls, does the RSF effectively

successfully partition Sudan?

KHOLOOD KHAIR, SUDANESE POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, there are certainly signs that it would be easier for them to claim a greater chunk of the country,

thereby delineating their area of control. But what is really important about El Obeid, militarily speaking for the RSF, is that it's actually not

very far by road from the capital, Khartoum. Ever since the RSF was pushed out of the capital in March of last year, they have vowed to return there.

So, taking El Obeid, holding it, allows them to open up that main road that goes from El Obeid straight back to Khartoum. For the SAF, the same reason

that they want to keep El Obeid is because for them, they're trying to stop the RSF from going to the capital, but they also want to ensure that by

keeping El Obeid, they have a way into the western part of Sudan Darfur that the RSF has held since the start of the war.

GOLODRYGA: Nate, the health minister of the RSF's self-declared government says capturing El Obeid is, quote, "just a military operation, the normal

cascade of war." He goes on to promise no atrocities and dismisses reports of attacks on civilians in El Fasher as propaganda.

As you've been on this program before, your satellite images have documented mass systemic killings, the body disposal in El Fasher for

everyone to see by satellite. So, what is your response to these statements from that minister?

RAYMOND: Everywhere RSF goes, every city they take, there are atrocities. But I want to be clear here that what happened in El Fasher was specific to

the fact that there were four in Zaghawa who had survived the last genocide by the Janjaweed, and the RSF was coming to intentionally kill the

remaining black African people of Darfur.

In the case of El Obeid, those ethnic groups are not there. That doesn't mean if RSF does capture the city, there won't be atrocities, but it will

look less like El Fasher, most likely, and more like the capture of Nyala in Zalingei in 2023, in which they killed perceived collaborators

collaborators with Sudan armed forces.

[13:25:00]

So, there is always risk with RSF of mass atrocities. But El Fasher was a unique intentional effort to create a genocidal massacre of specific ethnic

groups.

GOLODRYGA: So, Kholood, that same RSF official was speaking as a minister of the Sudan Founding Alliance. That is a parallel government the RSF

declared a year ago. So, when officials like that give interviews and promise an orderly capture of El Obeid, is that, in your view, a governing

body trying to project a sense of orderly warfare, if that can even be described that way, or at least legitimacy?

KHAIR: It's smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. There is no sort of universe where any guarantees by the RSF can currently be taken seriously,

precisely because of what Nathaniel just mentioned, the fact that you have had a series of atrocities committed after the RSF has taken not just areas

in Darfur, but also in the center in places like Jazeera.

And so, we know that this is part of the RSF playbook in large part because the RSF was created precisely to do this. When the government in Khartoum

and the Sudanese armed forces 20 years ago, your viewers will remember that the first Darfur genocide, when they wanted to really enact a lot of

violence against the people of Darfur, they got the Janjaweed, the predecessors of the RSF together. They gave them money, they gave them

weapons, and they let them do what they've been doing effectively for over 20 years.

So, we know what the RSF is. They have shown their true colors. And I think no amount of sort of papering over that with governmental positions should

disabuse us of the potential they have to enact a great deal of violence.

Now, Nati is right. El Obeid is a cosmopolitan city. And there are mostly commercial interests, as well as, of course, the tactical and the strategic

interests around controlling that particular part of the country. But there are still some signs that atrocities could take place precisely because of

local dynamics, similar in a way to El Fasher that sometimes override the military objective of the RSF.

GOLODRYGA: So, smoke and mirrors, perhaps more of a PR operation, but it's clear that the world is watching whether the world will respond is entirely

different. And, Nate, U.S., European, and African officials say that the UAE has run a covert operation backing the RSF with powerful weapons and

drones.

The Emiratis, we should note, have always denied that. But you testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee that the Foreign Office failed to prevent

the El Fasher massacre because of pressure from the UAE. And your lab documented continued support for RSF forces at a base in Ethiopia as

recently as June.

So, how much further does this sort of chain of support go? How many countries here are either willfully participating or at least turning a

blind eye?

RAYMOND: Well, this is the critical question. On the RSF side, they could not fight this war without the UAE's superhighway of advanced weapons

support, which has been documented not only by us at Yale, but also by U.S. intelligence as reported by The Wall Street Journal, U.S. Defense

Intelligence Agency, and the Intelligence and Research Bureau of the U.S. State Department have concluded last year that in covert findings that UAE

is behind the weapons pipeline.

As we saw in Ethiopia, this is a multinational effort by the UAE from Ethiopia to Chad to Libya, as recently reported in the past week, to create

basically a network of arms supply routes. But on the SAF side, Sudan Armed Forces, they're supported by Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and also

by Turkey.

GOLODRYGA: And, Kholood, there's then the question of U.S. pressure alone, which has always been and continues to be, I think, the most effective form

in addressing these types of atrocities. The State Department has acknowledged this, has warned of imminent mass atrocities. But you said

this policy has failed thus far, the policy of sanctions, foreign terror organization designations.

So, what would real pressure, what would real U.S. policy look like that could change conditions on the ground?

KHAIR: Well, there's a sort of more immediate acts that the U.S. could, you know, enact. And then there's the longer-term questions that the U.S.

needs to ask itself. The short-term acts are, for example, when we see that the RSF is putting a lot --

GOLODRYGA: I think we may have a connection issue with Kholood.

[13:30:00]

Oh, can you hear -- I think we can hear you now. Do you want to -- Kholood, can you hear me?

KHAIR: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: OK, great. Sorry.

KHAIR: Sure.

GOLODRYGA: I think we just lost for a few seconds.

KHAIR: You know, this is the more immediate -- no problem. There's a more immediate things that the United States government should do. And then

there's a longer-term question that the U.S. needs to ask itself.

And the short-term, it's about how do you leverage a relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates when it comes to very acute

issues like the siege that the RSF is currently enacting on the people of El-Obeid?

We do not need to wait for the RSF to enter the city. The RSF is already making life atrocious for people. There are atrocities really being carried

out in real time. There needs to be regular phone calls between Washington and Abu Dhabi to get the UAE to put pressure on the RSF to scale back their

attacks on civilians.

But in the long-term, the U.S. really needs to ask itself what is the nature of its relationship with countries like the UAE, but also countries

like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It's very clear that these countries do not see eye to eye any longer. So, the outsourcing policy that

the United States has had for over a decade now of simply outsourcing places like the Horn of Africa, in many cases like the Levant, to its Arab

allies, it no longer holds because they are no longer on the same page.

And the enmity between these countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and increasingly also Turkey against Israel, and more likely Israel against

Turkey, those are playing out in places like Sudan. Those are playing out in places like Somalia.

And so, the United States needs to ask itself, how is it going to really sort of reconcile the differences of its allies in the region in order to

make sure that lives are saved, in order to make sure that countries like Sudan do not bear the brunt of that enmity? And to ensure that the U.S.

really stands for what it says that it stands for in the region, stability, democracy, sovereignty of peoples. We haven't really seen the U.S. even

start to ask itself that question.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, you're right to bring up those other countries, including Turkey, which is hosting the NATO summit today. The president just met with

their president. President Trump just met with President Erdogan. Turkey, Russia, Iran are reported to have sold weapons to the army, to the RSF,

sometimes even paid in gold.

Nate, I want to turn to the issue of drone warfare and drone use, because there's not a conflict in the world that doesn't involve drones. You

mentioned this at the top of this interview. But I'd like to play U.N. Rights Chief, Turk Volker, his description of the impact of drones on this

conflict.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLKER TURK, U.N. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS: My office documented 15 drone strikes on El Obeid and surrounding areas between 6 and 28 June,

which killed at least 45 civilians and injured 41. The actual number of civilian casualty is likely higher.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Nate, can you talk about the role of drones in this war, where they're coming from? They are much cheaper, as we know, to purchase than

many other weapons, but they are quite effective.

RAYMOND: You're asking the essential question. The war in Sudan for both the army and Rapid Support Forces is now a drone war. And that is changing

how fighting traditionally happens in Sudan. Right now, in the rainy season, fighting would be slowing down because planes can't fly and trucks

can't drive on the road in the mud.

But with drones, we are now seeing actually an escalation in civilian casualties, where the plurality, if not the majority, of all civilian

casualties since the start of this year have really been related to drones. We're talking about really two families of drones, loitering munitions,

suicide drones, similar to the Iranian style, what's called the Shahed, which is a V-wing drone that blows up like a flying basically car bomb.

And then the other strategic drones, which are used by both sides, both for intelligence and reconnaissance, but also to fire missiles and to block

telecommunications, including civilians calling for help on cell phones.

And so, we've seen both sides with SAF, Sudan Armed Forces, getting drones from Turkey and Iran. But then for the UAE supplied drones for RSF are

mostly from corporations in China and joint UAE and Chinese enterprises.

And so, right now what's happening in Sudan, watch it because you're seeing the future of warfare in Africa, which is really reliant on drones at every

stage, particularly for attacking civilians.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. We're seeing it in a number of theaters now, whether it's in Europe and Ukraine and Africa and obviously in the Middle East as well.

[13:00:00]

Let me end by asking you, Kholood, a question that has become sort of an evergreen closer for our show, but I think it is probably the most

important. And the question of why isn't the world doing enough? Why do so many innocent people have to suffer and die? 14 million displaced death

estimates as high as 400,000 abuse against women, obviously children. And that impact alone.

What is the one thing in your view that changes this war's trajectory in the next month or two? I mean, what can be done right now to change the

course of this war?

KHAIR: Cutting off the arms supply, and that he said, you know, this war is as consequential as it is. It's as large as it is. It's as destabilizing

and destructive as it is precisely because of the scale of the warfare. Now, Sudan has had war for most of its history since independence in 1956.

What makes the difference now is just how destructive these new age weapons are that are being employed by the SAF, the Sudanese Armed Forces, and the

RSF on a daily basis. Take that away and the fighting becomes much more localized and it becomes much more of a lower scale warfare.

Now, of course, we would still need to enact various different ways and mediations to make sure that that war ends. But the point is that we

wouldn't be seeing the civilian casualties to the extent that we are today. You know, people are right now in places like El-Obeid fearing going for

water, fearing going for fuel where they can find it, because congregating draws in the RSF drones. You know, that is a daily level of fear that

people have to live with at a time, as you say, where the world could not care less.

And I think, you know, I've said this before in the show, there is a level of sort of internationalized racism that we're seeing here, whether it's a

taxonomy or a sort of a hierarchy of suffering where the Sudanese people and, you know, and others in Africa do not feature. Where Sudan as a sort

of an area, a region, a policy agenda does not feature in the conversations between heads of state, whether it's at the NATO summit or the G7 or any of

the recent, you know, international fora that we have seen.

We struggle to get people to talk about Sudan, even as it is the world's largest hunger crisis, humanitarian crisis, displacement crisis and sexual

violence crisis that needs to end.

GOLODRYGA: We will not view it as an afterthought. We'll continue to cover this story and are so grateful for the work that both of you are doing to

raise attention, as you have been for so many years now. Kholood Khair, Nathaniel Raymond, appreciate the time.

And coming up for U.S., a French appeals court has opened the door for far- right leader Marine Le Pen to stand in next year's presidential election. But there is a catch. We'll explain after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:00]

GOLODRYGA: Now, a ruling that could pave the way for Marine Le Pen's political comeback. A French appeals court has shortened the far-right

leader's five-year ban on running for elected office. That's after Le Pen appealed her conviction for embezzling millions of euros worth of E.U.

funds.

While the court upheld that conviction, it slashed the amount of time she is barred from running for office to 15 months, meaning she could still

enter the 2027 presidential race. But an order to wear an ankle monitor for the next year could dampen her campaign ambitions.

For more on where this leaves the fate of the far-right in France, I'm joined by Melissa Bell from Paris. So, campaigning, Melissa with an ankle

around with -- you know, being strapped by an ankle confining you to stay home or to at least limit your travel plans, is this something that would

endure -- endear her to more voters? And do you think that she will capitalize on at least this opportunity to launch a campaign?

MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it does seem complicated when you consider the logistics of running a presidential bid

with an ankle bracelet that essentially confines you to your home, or that you can then negotiate with your probation officers when you can go out,

what you need to do in order to be reinserted into society, as the lawyers put it, and earn a living.

Now, she had in the past said that she would not mount that fourth presidential bid if she had an ankle bracelet, but that's exactly what this

ruling today confirms. First of all, that the ineligibility ban is shortened. She can technically, legally stand. That is no longer a

question. But the -- it does also confirm that she will have this bracelet.

Now, she has 10 days to appeal the appeals decision. Then there will be negotiations to be had about the modalities of how she wears it. But

really, the ruling that we hear today was sufficiently complex, Bianna, that we had imagined this unofficial start to the 2027 race to come from

the courtroom, it will actually come from a French television studio in about 20 minutes.

We understand she and Jordan Bardella have now left the national rally's headquarters in the 16th arrondissement of Paris to head to the studios,

presumably to take to the air together. I think it would be very surprising if she had not confirmed a run. She has, after all, fought all her life,

first of all, to take control of the party that her father had founded, then to detoxify it sufficiently that it should be electable.

She stood three times, including last time, against Emmanuel Macron, getting 41 percent of the vote. I think one of the most controversial

things that had come out from that ruling last year when she'd been found guilty of this embezzlement scheme that where essentially the party had

been paying party political workers with European parliamentary funds.

The most surprising part about it had been this ban on her standing for public office for five years. Over the course of the last 16 months, that

question had been frozen by this appeals process. In the meantime, her heir apparent, Jordan Bardella, had been -- a lot of candidates, potential

candidates had been positioning themselves against him.

What the polls suggest is that whether it is her or him, the National Rally still is leading those polls still. It will make a big difference to how

the candidates position themselves in terms of who actually leads the party into the election, and that's why this verdict was being so closely

watched.

We had expected an unambiguous answer from the courtroom itself, but in the end, it will be about her telling the nation of her plans, given that it is

likely she will now be wearing that that monitor, that electronic tag over the course at least of the next few months and possibly into the next year,

Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: And perhaps it could be worn as a badge of honor, electronic, a monitor, electronic bracelet, however you want to describe it. If you were

to compare how President Trump came back for a second term, many view the trials that he went through, the accusations, even the convictions helped

boost his standing with his supporters. Do you see that there's a path perhaps for Marine Le Pen and her party if she uses the same grievances?

BELL: It was precisely the thought that occurred to me, how much of a badge of honor an electronic bracelet would be. Very much in the wake and

in during the trial last March when she was found guilty of this embezzlement scheme, she had certainly suggested that these were

illegitimate courts, that the judiciary in France was not independent, that these were judges that were partisan and determined to stop her from

standing.

In fact, she'd gone onto French television that night to say there are millions of French people who understand this and who are outraged, really

using that question or that terminology of lawfare that President Trump has used in his case about herself.

[13:45:00]

And in fact, at that time, when her verdict came down last March, we'd had the Truth Social from President Trump calling free Marine Le Pen and

explaining that these were similar things that were happening to him. I think it is entirely possible that this far-right populist here in France

uses it as a way of explaining that she is trying to get to the people, that the system is against her.

But for now, we await her announcement whether or not when she arrives on that TV set with Jordan Bardella, they're announcing a joint ticket, her as

president, him as prime minister, and that would be a formidable challenge for all of the other parties, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, you said that announcement could come as soon as a few minutes from now. You'll be following it all for us. Melissa Bell in Paris,

thank you.

Well, next we turn to the extreme heat that is gripping the world, including Paris. Europe is experiencing its third wave of scorching weather

since May, while in the U.S., July 4th celebrations were canceled over the weekend with more than 20 states facing temperatures over 100 degrees

Fahrenheit. According to scientists, this heat wouldn't be possible without human-caused climate change.

But as the crisis intensifies, fossil fuel production is set to rise. The Trump administration is rolling back clean energy projects, and major

international institutions are pulling back from climate commitments. Our next guest says the question now is not just how we slow climate change,

but how we adapt to this new reality.

David Wallace-Wells is author of "The Uninhabitable Earth," and he joins me now from New York. Welcome to the program, David.

So, the fact that your question of how we adapt is now front and center and has really sparked a debate in Europe in particular about whether or not

more institutions, schools, homes, public places should be facilitated with air conditions and refurbished. At this point, this has long been sort of a

source of pride for many Europeans. Do you think now this should just be something that's accepted in most countries?

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS, AUTHOR, "THE UNINHABITABLE EARTH": I think, unfortunately, if Europe doesn't air condition at mass scale, we're going

to see many more heat mortality events like we're seeing this summer, like we saw in 2022 when 60,000 Europeans died, like we saw in 2010 or 2003.

And what's most scary to me is that since that heat wave, the heat wave of 2003, which at the time seemed like a major wake-up call about the threat

facing Europe, since that time, heat waves like the one that we saw a few weeks ago on the continent have grown about 100 times more likely, which

tells us something about just how fast this threat is growing, particularly in the parts of the world that haven't yet done much to their

infrastructure to adapt or respond.

GOLODRYGA: So, did the speed and intensity, specifically this summer, of now we have Europe entering its third heat wave. We experienced one through

a large portion of the United States over the last few days as well. Did this surprise you, the timing? Because we typically have these

conversations mid-August, late August. This was starting in June, David.

WALLACE-WELLS: There's a lot about the climate system that remains quite surprising even to the people who know it best, and I'm not a climate

scientist. I'm a journalist who writes about this. But we do know that over the last few years a growing number of experts have come to the consensus

view that global warming is not just continuing but accelerating.

There've been a few quite surprising years when we measure the impacts just in terms of global average temperature. And we're heading up into an El

Nino event that's growing now in the Pacific and will probably peak towards the end of this calendar year into next year's next year's winter in the

Northern Hemisphere, which could push global average temperatures close to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average.

And that may seem a little abstract, but what it means is that at least for one year we might be brushing up against the higher goal that we set for

ourselves in the Paris Agreement a decade ago, which is to say, we said as a planet, we're going to do everything we could to limit warming below two

degrees and try to keep it as close to 1.5 degrees as possible.

We're now functionally at 1.5 degrees of warming, and at least next year we may get a preview of a two-degree world, which means all of the things that

freaked us out about how scary and disruptive climate change would be six or eight or 10 years ago, we're now heading into that future much more

quickly than we anticipated when we told ourselves it was an unacceptable set of outcomes.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. So, much --

WALLACE-WELLS: And now, here we are dealing with them.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. So much of what you warned about in your book, I mean quite presciently has come true. And scientists at the World Weather

Attribution say heat at this level is now 10 to 100 times more likely than in 2003, and that today's extremes are a preview of what an ordinary summer

will look like mid-century. And we've had people on this show say that this summer will likely be the coolest summer that we'll have experienced. Each

year we are saying this.

[13:50:00]

So, when the public hears new normal though do you think that, in a way, normalizes what should be an alarming story?

WALLACE-WELLS: Yes. I mean, as I said a few minutes ago it -- these are temperature events and heat events that we were warned about not that long

ago, and when we were warned, the public freaked out. We had the climate awakening of the 2018 to 2020 period, all of that activism in response to

warnings about exactly these climate futures, which we're now dealing with much faster than we thought was possible even then.

But I think the bigger risk is that we forget that things will get considerably worse from here. We tell ourselves a story and, you know,

repeat phrases like the new normal and think that things are therefore stable, but they're not. Things are going to keep getting hotter. In fact,

as I said a minute ago, they're getting hotter at a faster rate than ever before in the history of global warming, which is to say faster than ever

in the planet's history, including heating events that killed off 50 to 90, 90 percent of all life on Earth.

That's not to say that humans can't adapt and human civilization won't endure. Of course, it will, but it requires a mass retrofitting of all of

the things that we've ever built to allow human life to thrive. If London is going to be more like Seville, then London needs to look like Seville.

If New York is going to be more like Atlanta, then New York is going to have to be built more like Atlanta.

Air conditioning can do a lot. In the U.S., it has done a lot, but in the parts of the world where we've done less to AC the population, and in fact,

half of all air conditioning units in the world are in the United States. So, elsewhere in the world, we do need to do much more, perhaps starting

with ACs, but thinking much more broadly about how we live in the world, how we build the world, and what we can do to make what used to look like

an uninhabitable future much more comfortable for future generations.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it is striking that you talk about retrofitting and not sort of focused on what we can do to at least roll back or slow down

climate change through our own actions. And the Trump administration seems to be moving in the opposite direction here, despite all of these warnings

from experts, I know many who you speak with regularly. The Trump administration's pressuring the World Bank, we should note, to drop its

climate lending target paying companies to abandon offshore wind projects and doubling down on oil and gas.

What are you hearing from experts about these policies that the Trump administration has been rolling out, you know, leaving the Paris Climate

Accords in its first term, but now, effectively even doubling down in its second?

WALLACE-WELLS: Well, there's one way of thinking about what's happening on the global stage with climate, which is to say that, led by the U.S., most

countries of the world are walking away from their policy commitments on global warming.

And to some extent, that is true. There was a kind of a spate of really aggressive climate targets and pledges that countries around the world

passed in -- through legislation in the 2020, 2021 years, and then there was a sort of a subsiding of that action, of that activism. And we had for

a few years a sort of a period -- a fallow period for climate policy.

But even through that period, the private sector, powered by the incredible falling price of renewables, continued to deploy green energy at a much

faster pace than most experts believed was possible just a few years ago.

And so, today, even in the United States where Donald Trump is sort of, you know, unmistakably going to war with green energy, he's literally paying

developers of wind farms not to continue their projects, even ones that are half-built. Doing everything he can to strip the IRA, Biden's climate bill,

of the subsidies for solar and EVs. Even in that environment, last year more than 90 percent of all new energy infrastructure built in the U.S. was

green. That means that for every unit of bad fossil fuel infrastructure we built 10 times as much green energy stuff.

And that's true around the world as well where the retreat from climate action hasn't been quite as pronounced as it was in the U.S. Nevertheless,

many countries are sort of, have been soft-pedaling this activity. Even so, they are rolling out renewables at a sort of breakneck pace, and that's

only accelerated in the wake of the war in Iran when anyone looking at the state of the world thought to themselves, well, we can't be dependent on

this fossil fuel supply chain any longer. This is the third fossil fuel shock in the last six years. It's the -- something like the 16th in the

last 60. Why don't we install new infrastructure that'll allow us to draw energy directly from the sun and not depend on any foreign actors, whether

those are malign actors in the Middle East or potentially malign actors in Washington?

GOLODRYGA: Right. And as important as private sector investment is, I mean, the public sector part of it, especially from a government as large

and powerful and rich as the United States, it is crucial, and other countries then, as you noted, would follow and that's not happening now.

[13:55:00]

Quickly, are we moving closer to seeing parts o- of the world that become seasonably unlivable, in your view?

WALLACE-WELLS: Well, you know, it all depends on your standards. I think that before we get to a place where, you know, people won't -- will

literally not be able to walk around comfortably without risking heatstroke, you're going to be dealing with parts of the planet that are --

have dealt with that kind of heat for periods of days, now dealing with them for weeks. And we've seen that already in South Asia, where the kinds

of heat waves and mortality events that used to come very infrequently now come every single year.

And the same could be said for Europe. In 2022, the heat wave that I mentioned a few minutes ago that killed 60,000 people, it wasn't even

processed by the public as especially alarming event because they had already gotten used to that kind of a mass heat death in 2010 and 2003. I

think we're going to see that pattern playing out more around the world.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. We need to come up with a term other than new normal. David Wallace-Wells, this is all alarming, but so important for our viewers

to hear. Thank you.

WALLACE-WELLS: Thank you for having me.

GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END