Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Chatham House Middle East and North Africa Programme Director Sanam Vakil; Interview with Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. Aired 1- 2p ET
Aired July 08, 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.
Is the ceasefire over? At the NATO summit in Ankara, President Donald Trump suggests it could be, as Iran and America once again exchange fire.
Regional expert, Sanam Vakil, joins me to discuss the latest developments.
And how are allies reacting amid an already fraying alliance? I ask former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo
Daalder.
Then, grief and desperation two weeks on from Venezuela's double earthquake. How a migrant deported from the United States miraculously
survived the disaster. We'll bring you that report.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
After trading strikes overnight, are the U.S. and Iran still in a truce? Not according to President Trump's latest threats to hit critical civilian
infrastructure like electricity and desalination plants. And just like the last time he made these threats, they would still constitute war crimes.
At the NATO summit, Trump was asked about the status of the MOU.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: As far as I'm concerned, it's just a waste of time dealing with them. They're liars. We make a deal and they were --
if I make a deal with him, we have a deal, and he goes out, he talks. We make a deal. Everyone's agreed. No nuclear weapon. We make a deal. They go
outside, talk to the press. They say we never even talked about it. There's something wrong with them. They're cuckoo. As far as I'm concerned, it's
over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, cuckoo or not, Iran's top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said today Iran isn't budging. Quote, "The era of bullying and
extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don't fold."
So, is this all about negotiating in public, or is the chance of a deal really dead? CNN's Kevin Liptak is following all this from Ankara, and he's
joining me now. Kevin, you and we all have just emerged from a very long and by even Trump standards massively contradictory statement. So, where
are we? First and foremost, did he or did he not say the ceasefire is over and there's a real possibility of full-scale war again?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: He said the ceasefire was over, but he said that the possibility of war starting again was low. And
so, yes, these are contradictory statements. We don't have a good picture of where precisely the president sees this heading, except that he thinks
this MOU that he signed exactly three weeks ago at the Palace of Versailles is no longer in effect.
He said that he didn't think the Iranians had been discussing nuclear deal in good faith, and he seemed particularly irked that they were firing at
commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, and he's been casting them as essentially bad-faith negotiators.
And it was interesting listening to him over the course of today. His rhetoric and his explanations for all of this did shift somewhat. You know,
early this morning, he was furious at Iran. He said that they had promised the United States that they would not engage in these strikes on the
vessels while that funeral was ongoing for the slain supreme leader.
Later in the day, he seems to dial back somewhat. He said that, no, he doesn't think the war will start again. He thinks that this tit-for-tat
back-and-forth will not go on for very long and that he is, quote, "not looking for long-term."
So, what exactly does all of this mean? I think it just illustrates that the president finds himself in the very same conundrum that he was in
before this MOU was signed. He faces a choice. Does he go back to full- scale war and risk all of the political and economic repercussions that that would entail?
Remember, when he signed this MOU, he said the war needed to end to prevent an economic catastrophe. None of the conditions have changed since then, so
that would still be the result, or does he allow these negotiations to continue? He sounds like that's not going to happen, although he is still
allowing his negotiators, J.D. Vance, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff, to try and get the Iranians back to the negotiating table. But by his own
admission, it would be with a group of people that he doesn't trust.
[13:05:00]
And it doesn't seem likely that the Iranians are going to want to come back to a negotiating table with someone who says that the war could potentially
restart. So, it's a very complicated, contradictory situation, I think, that the president finds himself in.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And the question is, is it negotiating in public? Look, he also, you know, called them scum today, whereas a few days ago he called
them rational and smart and strong. But most importantly, and I think this is key, Kevin, he kept saying today that oil prices are down. I mean, they
are not. The whole day was marked by spikes in oil prices precisely because of the resumption of this military, as they say, kinetic encounters.
Is that what is motivating him most, you think, the domestic pressure and the global pressure on the economy?
LIPTAK: I think it's one of the, you know, main contributing factors to all of this. And therein, I think, lies the conundrum for the president.
Every time that this war starts to flare up, you do see a spike in oil prices. Every day we're getting closer and closer to the midterm elections
in the United States. The war is obviously enormously unpopular among the American public. And you could hear the size of relief among Republicans in
Washington when this MOU went into effect. And so, the president faces all of that same political pressure now that he says that the MOU is no longer
effective.
I think when you were listening closely to the president today, you did hear another contributing factor in all of this. He kept referencing over
and over again how Iran wants to kill him, how he is the number one target on the Iranian assassination list. And I don't think you can separate that
from the fact that you heard chants for President Trump's death in Tehran over the course of these funeral moments for the supreme leader.
I think that's weighing heavily on the president. He is someone who we know takes a lot of this personally. And so, when you listen to him, and I
think, you know, having listened to President Trump a lot over the last decade, it's very clear that he is taking personal affront here. And that
could be driving, I think, some of what he's saying here and some of his decisions when it comes to this conflict.
AMANPOUR: And very quickly, because I have to move on, but he was quite conciliatory and almost nice to the NATO allies. He talked about unity. Did
they really all tell him they loved him so much?
LIPTAK: I think it's easy to imagine that, particularly under the guidance of the secretary general, Mark Rutte, who has spent his entire
administration working to cultivate Trump in ways that have earned him the ire of a lot of European leaders.
And so, I think if they were taking their direction from him, they went into the summit with an eye towards explaining to Trump that, yes, he is
why Europe is spending more on its own defense and trying to bolster its own capabilities. Whether their dignity was a casualty in that arrangement,
I think, is an open question. But it seems to have worked on President Trump. He went into this meeting sounding furious at the allies for not
doing more to help him in Iran. And he emerged with a completely different tone, saying that he would sum up the entire meeting with the word unity.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's a change. It's a welcome change. And, Kevin Liptak, thank you very much indeed.
So, let's get more analysis on the Iran situation from regional expert Sanam Vakil, who's director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme
at Chatham House. She's joining me now from London.
Sanam, you've been watching pretty much all day, no doubt. You're seeing what's happening. You've heard some of the analysis. What do you think is
actually happening right now? What do these strikes signal to you?
SANAM VAKIL, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA PROGRAMME, CHATHAM HOUSE: Well, good to be with you, Christiane. I think that these strikes
are just part of the process. Of course, there is a possibility that this is a real breakdown and we could see further escalation over the next few
days.
But, you know, it's important to remember that the MOU was signed in mid- June, effectively, and we're three weeks on and this is the second round of kinetic back and forth between the U.S. and Iran. So, this could be part of
the bumpy road. And today, President Trump also did signal that negotiations would continue.
So, I think it's, you know, we shouldn't rule anything out, but I very much foresee negotiators trying to bring down the temperature and preserve the
MOU or what's left of it. But what's problematic is that both sides have different interpretations of this MOU. And secondly, negotiations are not
consistent enough to move this process forward.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you two factual issues. Regarding nuclear talks, obviously President Trump, like every other leader in the democratic world,
every other U.S. president as well, has said Iran cannot, will not, ever have a nuclear weapon. That's a given.
What did the MOU say about talks about that process? Is it meant to be happening now or after the 60-day MOU timeline?
VAKIL: The nuclear question or the nuclear basket is part of the technical talks that should be happening within the 60-day period and can be extended
for another 30 days. There is meant to be a second round of technical talks in Switzerland. Those were announced but, you know, maybe not finalized.
And so, it's important to watch if those still go ahead.
The U.S. has built out a technical team and the Iranians certainly have one as well. And in the meantime, behind the scenes, the Qataris and other
countries are trying to facilitate conversations and trying to bring down the temperature quite quickly.
AMANPOUR: And do you think then -- why do you think Iran is not starting the talks on nuclear?
VAKIL: Well, part of it is timing and sequencing. Obviously, the Iranians, after the last meeting in Switzerland, went back home perhaps to regroup,
to build internal consensus on some of the issues. We don't have a lot of details on what was agreed or the progress. And that's what's problematic.
In my view, they need to be locked into a room for quite a period of time in order to move the dial. And it looks like we're going to get to the end
of the 60 days without too much progress.
Personally, I think that there is room for progress on the nuclear side, really because there's been such a history of discussions in advance of the
February 28th war but also last year on the nuclear talks. We know what the basic contours of that agreement is going to look like.
What's problematic is that the MOU is vague on the process of reinvestment or reconstruction of Iran. It's vague on sanctions relief. And yes, the
U.S. has offered Iran a sanctions waiver, which today it revoked. But the Strait of Hormuz remains a big question mark. And these issues are all
connected to each other. They're not separate technical discussions. So, they need to be moving forward deliberately, continuously, and linked
together rather than split apart.
AMANPOUR: And do you think there is a way forward to resolve the Strait of Hormuz issue?
VAKIL: I do think there is a way forward, but it can't be segregated. And what Iran or Iran's response or effort to continue to destabilize the
Strait of Hormuz or assert control over the Strait of Hormuz is tied to the fact that there is this Oman channel with ships trying to go out on that
southern corridor of the Strait of Hormuz. And Iran understands this memorandum of understanding as one that gives Iran authority to manage the
Strait of Hormuz. It very much sees the United States and other countries as trying to whittle down its leverage.
And the same goes for the context of Lebanon, where Iran wanted the war to also end in Lebanon and push for an Israeli withdrawal. Iran thinks that
the U.S. and Israel and other actors are trying to segregate the various issues and thereby reduce Iran's leverage in this context.
And so, we're watching basically a power struggle, if you will, between all of these parties playing out militarily, playing out rhetorically, and, of
course, at the diplomatic table.
AMANPOUR: I want to play something because this all involves obviously Trump's partner in this war, Benjamin Netanyahu, who we know was not pro
the ceasefire or the MOU and, for all we know, has been lobbying hard to make it not continue. This is what he told CNN's Dana Bash, not just about,
you know, the big picture, but specifically about the nuclear issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: The president believes that he can stop Iran's nuclear program, which is a nuclear program to create
atomic bombs. He believes that he can do this through negotiations and various pressures. Look, I have my doubts, but I think he should be given
the chance, and he is trying to achieve that. It remains to be seen.
[13:15:00]
But I have said, and by the way, I think President Trump has said too, that deal or no deal, I certainly will not let Iran have nuclear weapons, and
that is also the president's position.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, you know, there's so much talk, Sanam, about the relationship now, you know, the political relationship and the strategic
relationship between these two leaders. Where do you think it stands right now? Is Trump more on Netanyahu's side? Is Netanyahu still trying to
basically destabilize any idea of peace?
And, you know, you're a regional expert. Where does the issue of Lebanon stand? Because obviously part of the MOU, you know, the first point was
about ending all the wars, including Israel's war and Hezbollah -- with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
VAKIL: Well, I think that Trump-Bibi Netanyahu relationship has certainly frayed through the course of this war and through the ceasefire and signing
of the MOU. Prime Minister Netanyahu nevertheless continues to push, and I think he is a perpetual spoiler. He ties, of course, his political survival
for his potential re-election in Israeli elections this year to the purse strings of Washington and the security relationship. He is reported to be
trying to get back to the White House and have another meeting with President Trump. So, you know, it's important to watch that space.
I think that the U.S. president definitely is a referee in between Israel and Iran and all of these complex regional dynamics. He does, however,
President Trump here does recognize, of course, that perhaps he bought too much into the Israeli pitch that this would be an easy, quick war. And, of
course, President Trump is paying the price, and that could explain quite a bit of distance between the two leaders right now.
Netanyahu, though, we should never count as fully out of the equation. He is a survivor, and he will be working his way back in one way or another.
And this is where, of course, Lebanon comes in. This is a critical election year for Israel and Israelis. And, you know, Israel has been on a war
footing for three years. Since October 7th, the population is certainly fatigued, and the opposition, the so-called opposition, is looking for ways
to unseat Netanyahu and his coalition.
We could see an escalation in the context of Lebanon going into the election. It's not going to be easy to demilitarize Hezbollah. That is the
job of the Lebanese government. But nevertheless, these negotiations are continuing. But it's going to be very much a process, and it's got to be an
internal Lebanese process rather than an Israeli-imposed process.
And the longer that Israel destabilizes Lebanon, continues to destroy Lebanon, this quagmire is just going to go round and round in a vicious
circle, impacting the populations on both sides, but primarily the Lebanese, but also the region. This is all very intimately connected to
each other.
AMANPOUR: And now, back to Iran itself. As we all know, it's been a week- long funeral procession, culminating tomorrow with the burial of Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader who Israel basically decided to wipe out,
along with the whole leadership, on the very first day, assuming that that would lead to a toppling of the regime. Obviously, in the four months that
followed, we've seen that that hasn't happened.
But there seem to be, you know, questions emerging about the unity of the current Iranian leadership, including opposition from the ultra-hardliners
to this MOU, opposition to the -- you know, the people who are meant to be running the country right now, including the IRGC, from very hardliners,
saying that, you know, there would be traitors to make a deal with the United States.
How are you reading the current state of affairs in the Iranian leadership, and where might it lead?
VAKIL: Well, I see the leadership as strategically unified in survival and trying to extract as many benefits as possible out of this period. And
that's why, of course, they continue to try and be provocative and unpredictable. I think this is the new Iran. It doesn't want to be a
predictable, cautious Iran, which was the Iran of Ali Khamenei, who was killed, as you rightly mentioned.
But, of course, they have divisions amongst themselves. This system has always been factionalized. They've always debated. They've always been at
odds at different polls. I think this is normal. And perhaps a mirror of a lot of the same divisions, however people might dislike this comparison,
with the U.S. system that is equally opposed and equally critical of the MOU and this war.
[13:20:00]
What does this mean going forward? It means that there is going to be a constant contestation internally in Iran. I don't personally see one group
as having emerged as the dominant power. Certainly, the IRGC is the most influential because they have been gaining influence in the country for
quite some time. This war this conflict with the United States has accelerated a lot of trends we have seen domestically in Iran, but also
regionally.
So, the IRGC has an amplified role, and there are certain key figures like Ghalibaf or Ahmad Vahidi that are consensus builders. But there are other
players involved as well. I've written in the past about the Iranian deep state, the Iranian Nezam, together is composed of other institutions and
individuals that also matter. And any sort of agreement has to be sold internally, but it doesn't mean that principles or deep hardliners can't be
silenced and pushed aside.
And in fact, when the MOU was signed, it was signed because there was consensus across the system because everyone at the Supreme National
Security Council, practically everyone, was in agreement that this was the right way forward. So, you know, perpetual negotiation is part of politics,
and Iran has politics, and that's how we have to see it.
What we don't know is where Mojtaba Khamenei rests in this system. He has been operating behind the scenes for many decades in his father's office.
This ceremony, this week-long commemoration of his father and it extending into Iraq could suggest just confidence strength in sort of religious ties
perhaps. We have to watch the direction of travel, of debates of rhetoric and if the system chooses to moderate the religious ideology and turn to a
more pragmatic negotiation with the United States or not. And I don't have a, you know, strong sense that they have made decisions or one group has
emerged victorious just yet.
AMANPOUR: Sanam Vakil, always good to get your analysis. Thank you so much indeed.
And still to come, we take a closer look at how NATO allies are reacting. Can it withstand the challenges it faces? That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: So, is there a thaw in President Trump's unusually or usually frosty approach to NATO? As we discussed earlier at today's summit in
Ankara, he appeared to be adopting a slightly more conciliatory tone towards the military alliance, saying the leaders had a great meeting with
a lot of love and unity in the room, but how long for?
Let's assess with Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, NATO's newest member, and with Ivo Daalder, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO.
Let me ask you first, Carl Bildt, you have seen what's going on, I don't know how much of President Trump's final press conference you listened to,
it went on for quite a long time, but talk to me about the unity and the love, he said, was expressed in that room. What do you think?
CARL BILDT, FORMER SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER: I think love is a rather wild exaggeration. I mean, we should start from the basics, and that is that the
level of trust among the Europeans in President Trump is very low.
So, when you go into a summit of this sort, the aim is to survive the summit without any major bust-up or any major crisis. From that point of
view, it succeeded in Ankara. There was no major bust-up. It was, of course, Trump, which was highly unfortunate, repeating the claims on
Greenland, and he was threatening economic warfare in Spain, and a couple of other things.
But I understand that in the internal deliberations, he was mainly speaking about Iran, and of course, his misgivings with the lack of support from the
Europeans, but he didn't question NATO in the way that he has done before. And that, if one should be positive, that was, of course, the positive
thing.
AMANPOUR: And kind of a victory, really, because, yes, positive, but also a bit of a victory for the alliance and for the idea of, you know, still
having a U.S. shield. Would you say that NATO, Carl, you know, Europe could feel confident still that America will be there to support them?
BILDT: I don't think it changed very much in that particular respect. I mean, we have very low standards these days, so the fact that a meeting has
happened without a major crisis is now seen as a success, and even, as you say, a victory.
But what is still pending is, of course, the big question about American commitment to Europe. They have announced that they will do a review of the
American military presence, contributions to NATO, contribution to the defense of Europe. But that's going to happen -- or that's going to be out
in a couple of months' time. That's, of course, critical.
What we are aiming for -- well, developing in the interests of course, of NATO is significantly less U.S. The question is, how much will the U.S.
commitment to the security of Europe be reduced, and in what shape and form will that process happen? Are we more confident in American support these
days? President Trump is fairly unpredictable, to put it in those terms.
AMANPOUR: All right. Let me ask Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, where do you think NATO sort of landed today? And same sort of
question to you. Is Trump indicating, you know, a continued, you know, being a vigorous member of the alliance, or what? Because, as Carl said, he
did threaten Greenland again.
The prime minister of Denmark even said in the same room that Denmark would defend every inch of NATO territory, obviously including Greenland, sitting
with the president of the United States. It must have been pretty awkward.
IVO DAALDER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Yes, it was pretty awkward. I mean, I think two things came out of this meeting. Number one, I think an
agreement not to have them anymore. It was noteworthy that the leaders said that they were looking forward to seeing each other at a future meeting,
but weren't defining that future meeting as they had in the past, as being in 2027 in Albania.
So, they have now concluded that, frankly, two days of coming together with the hope and the victory that you're seeking being a boring meeting, as the
Lithuanian foreign minister put it, is really not worth it. And so, I don't think they're going to have a summit again until after President Trump
leaves office.
But secondly, and I think this is important, the president, although he, as you rightly said, he went after Greenland again, he went after Spain, he
castigated allies in a whole variety of ways, he didn't call into question America's membership of NATO.
And indeed, he signed onto a statement that the commitment to Article 5, the idea of an attack against one being an attack against all, that that
commitment was, quote, "ironclad." He did talk about the fact that the meeting itself had shown a tremendous degree of unity.
[13:30:00]
And by all accounts, his behavior inside the meeting was genial, and even supportive of what the Europeans were doing.
So, I think that was the day that the United States NATO, that day is over. So, then the question fundamentally becomes, what's the relative balance of
contributions that the United States and its European and Canadian allies are going to make to the defense of Europe?
And that balance is shifting very sharply away from a dominant United States that has contributed at times 70 percent of the forces and 90
percent or even more of certain capabilities. The Europeans are going to take on a greater role. The question is, is this going to happen
cooperatively with the United States, or is it going to be because the United States said, we're going to withdraw our capabilities because we
need them elsewhere? That is to be sorted.
AMANPOUR: And I'm actually fascinated by the idea that there wouldn't maybe be another meeting until the end of the Trump term, because you've
probably all read this report in The Wall Street Journal, a very deeply reported article, talking about, you know, the crisis talks amongst
European leaders on how to face Trump. And one of the conclusions, obviously, was what Prime Minister Carney had said, which is, there is no
going back. We're not going to be able to go back to the, whatever, good old days of NATO pre-Trump.
But there also seems to be two competing strategies, the Mark Rutte strategy, which is keeping Trump, keeping the United States entirely on
board, and the Macron argument that Europe must prepare for greater independence.
Ivo, what do you -- which one do you think is going to win, or are they just going to wait and hope that something changes when Trump is no longer
president?
DAALDER: So, I think you need to do both. And I think there's a role for Mark Rutte in trying to keep the United States on side by the flattery that
he is better at than virtually anyone else. And in that sense, the fact that the summit, one, happened and two, didn't fall apart, is in large
measure a testament to, one, where it was held, which is in Turkey, but secondly, to Mark Rutte's leadership in trying to keep the United States
engaged. And though we -- you know, I don't like it, I don't think anybody likes it, I'm pretty sure Mark Rutte doesn't like it, it is effective to
that extent.
But at the same time, you also need the Macron or Carney or whomever strategy that says, listen, we cannot depend on the United States. The
United States is no longer a reliable ally, and as a result, we need to do more by ourselves and for ourselves in case, in fact, the United States
decides that in a particular situation it no longer wants to participate in NATO operations.
And so, you need to do both, because you might have a NATO that is more European, but you don't want to have a NATO that doesn't have the United
States engaged. After all, the U.S., in my view, and I think the view of a vast majority of Americans is, European security is still indivisible from
American security and vice versa.
AMANPOUR: So, Carl, as the European, do you feel that, that America in general does believe that, that they're still intertwined? But also, pick
up on what Ivo said about how the actual location of the summit this week was in Turkey. Why -- do you agree that that was, you know, aided the sort
of -- I don't know, the atmospherics and the unity that came out of it? Obviously, Trump likes Erdogan, he says it over and again.
BILDT: Well, he said himself that a couple of weeks ago he said that he was really not intending to go to the NATO summit because he thought it was
useless, but he wanted to go because of President Erdogan. So, from that point of view, the fact that it was in Ankara was significant. Trump did
come, and although there were the hiccups, to put it mildly, on Greenland and Spain and a couple of others, as Ivo said, the organization survived.
And there is a short communique that is fairly constructive and fairly good.
But we shouldn't disguise the fact that there is a disconnect in the biggest issue that we are facing, and that is the Russian aggression
against Ukraine, which Europeans see as fundamental to our security. And Trump said something that Ukraine is far away. I mean, Iran is even more
further away, by the way, but he indicated that they don't really have a dog in that particular fight.
[13:35:00]
And that has, of course, been the problem that Europeans see, that when we have an acute threat to the security of Europe, the Americans or Trump has
been backing away in a way that leads to sort of worries of what happened - - might happen if Putin accelerates, escalates into something else. That's the big uncertainty that is there.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me just build on that, because I want to ask you both about, obviously, the big threat, the hugest threat for NATO, which is
Russia and the invasion of Ukraine and the war on Europe in, you know, threatening NATO.
I was actually surprised, although nothing should surprise us about Donald Trump, that instead of the beat down and the berating that he gave
Zelenskyy back in the White House that famous time, he was actually much more congenial. He had that meeting on the sidelines with President
Zelenskyy. And then he said that he was thinking about or he would allow the Ukrainians to build Patriot missiles, allow them the license and allow
other, I think, other Europeans, NATO members to do the same.
And that he apparently also said that as soon as this was over, he was going to go and talk to Putin, call Putin, and talk about how to try to get
to a ceasefire. And he thought that the Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian, the way they're taking the war to Russia now, especially Crimea, could prod, you
know, Putin into some other calculation. What do you make of that, Carl?
BILDT: Well, there's no question that there has been an improvement in the sort of personal chemistry between Zelenskyy and Trump since the famous
meetings of the Oval Office. At that time, I think the perception or the belief of JD Vance notably said it all the time, Ukraine was on the verge
of losing. And they were more or less on the Russian side when it comes to how that should be the conclusion of the war.
Now, they do understand that that is not what is happening on the battlefield. The front is fairly stable. The Russian attempts at offensive
operations have largely failed. And even if the Ukrainians are receiving quite heavy damage from the Russian missiles, they have brought the war
home to the Russians as well. So, the dynamics of the conflict have changed. And that I think has influenced the White House and Trump.
Whether that will translate into a change in the diplomatic approach that has been, in my opinion, misdirected and confused ever since Anchorage,
that remains to be seen. But clearly, the Europeans would like the Americans or Trump, particularly, to be somewhat more constructive and less
accommodating to Putin on these issues.
AMANPOUR: Ivo, as the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, pick up on that, because you have recently written in Politico about what appears to be
still, even under this administration, the same kind of fear under the Biden administration of how Putin might escalate and react to more help and
more squeeze on him, more help to the Ukrainians.
You wrote recently about Trump's decision not to sell Tomahawk missiles to Germany. Quote, "Not only is Washington no longer deploying deep precision
strike systems to Europe, it's also denying its European allies the capacity to arm themselves with these systems out of fear of Russians'
reaction." And today, the Latvian president said NATO needs to take a stronger posture. If we say that there is going to be an attack, then we
also need to say that we will fight. That's the Latvian president about this whole issue.
DAALDER: Yes. I thought, you know, what was interesting about President Trump is that he also supported the deep strikes by Ukrainians against
Russia. And indeed, those strikes, by the way, couldn't happen, but for the fact that the United States is providing significant intelligence, by some
sources that I talked to, more significant intelligence than was provided during the Biden administration in order to allow these strikes to happen.
There is a difference, however, in allowing and working with the Ukrainians to allow Ukrainian drones and capabilities to hit Russian and U.S. systems.
At least that's the line that the Biden administration drew. And I think it is the line in some ways that the Trump administration is drawing not only
with regard to Ukraine, but importantly, with regard to our allies, particularly when it comes to selling Tomahawk long range ground launch
missiles to Germany.
And I worry about the fact that the U.S. is trying to, in some ways, decouple its security from that of Europe. That is very much what I think
this administration, particularly this Pentagon, is bent on doing. And I think that is a big mistake. I think this is a time when the pressure on
Russia should be increased, as Carl rightly said, the situation is changing.
And, you know, Trump likes to back winners. He doesn't like to back losers. And right now, it seems like Zelenskyy and Ukraine are the winners, and
Putin and Russia are the losers.
[13:40:00]
Let's continue that pressure on Russia, therefore, in order to get to a end of this conflict that is consistent with Ukrainian security interests, and
therefore ours.
AMANPOUR: And, Carl, last word then. Do you think this, you know, pressure by Trump on Europe is actually working to do what Ivo says, to actually,
like that, amp up the pressure on Putin? I spoke to the former British prime minister, Theresa May, today, and she was the member, the first world
leader to meet with Trump, as she told me, precisely to keep him attached to NATO. This is what she told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I was the first world leader to visit President Trump in his first term, and one of the reasons for
doing that was to ensure that he would support NATO, and he did, and he came out supporting NATO.
But what he said at NATO was what the U.K. actually agreed with, which was that the countries sitting around that NATO table had to up their defense
spending.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Carl, we can't ignore the fact that actually Britain still needs to up its defense spending, as we've seen there's been a crisis in the
British government because of this. But do you credit Trump with actually doing what many of you have believed should be done, and that is more
contribution from NATO members?
BILDT: Well, I would credit, if that is the word that should be used, Vladimir Putin primarily for that. I mean, the fact that we are, for
example, Sweden, my own country, we are tripling defense spending in some years, that's quite a lot of money. We are not doing that because some
order's coming out of the White House. We are doing it because a country that is fairly close to us, Russia, is launching a huge military aggression
in the middle of Europe.
We would never have been able to get public opinion support for the vast increase in defense spending that we see in Sweden, in Norway, in Germany,
in X numbers of other countries, only because of American recommendations or pressure. It is the actual situation that we face in our reality of
European security that is causing this.
Then the Americans and Trump, the Americans have been saying for a long time that we are underspending. They've been right in that, no question
about that, during X numbers of administrations. At the same time, the Americans have also been taking down defense spending and taking down their
commitment to Europe during this particular period.
So, we've both been having that sort of misdirection of policies for a long time. Now, it's changing, and that's good. But where the disappointment
with Trump is, of course, the fact that he's backed away from supporting Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Well, yes. Well, we'll see, because he seems to be saying the right stuff now. We'll see where that goes. Former Prime Minister Carl
Bildt, former ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, thank you very much indeed.
And we will be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:45:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, to the tragedy in Venezuela, where the death toll rises to 3,685, two weeks after the deadly double earthquake. The number of missing
remains unknown, but it's expected to be in the thousands, with many blaming the government for a slow response. The acting president, Delcy
Rodriguez, has pushed back, accusing, quote, "media laboratories of creating a narrative of chaos."
But as cemeteries expand and nearly 18,000 people are displaced, CNN's Carolina Peguero follows a migrant who was on the last deportation flight
from the United States just hours before the disaster struck.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALBANIS PARRA, DAUGHTER OF EARTHQUAKE SURVIVOR (through translator): I found out my dad was in Venezuela on Tuesday, thanks to a woman who was
helping me find him. On Wednesday, the earthquake happened, and I hadn't talked to him yet. I knew nothing of him since then. I didn't know if he
was OK or not.
CAROLINA PEGUERO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two weeks after the devastating earthquakes in Venezuela, Albanis Parra still hasn't processed
the uncertainty she experienced, not knowing about her father, who had been on the last deportation flight on June 24. Today, he's alive by a miracle.
PARRA (through translator): My father survived by a miracle because he had a complaint filed against him by his sister from 15 years ago after an
argument, and he was taken to a separate detention facility.
PEGUERO (voice-over): Her father, Alberto Parra Villalobos, shares by FaceTime call from Venezuela and explains how this miraculous detour saved
his life, but not from the trauma he now lives with after witnessing the aftershocks and the destruction.
ALBERTO JOSE PARRA VILLALOBOS, EARTHQUAKE SURVIVOR (through translator): They told us, get ready, we're leaving. On the day of the earthquake, they
took us to a courthouse, which was across the hotel where the other deportees were staying at. The ground below was roaring loudly, like the
devil was coming out of it and the seawaters were coming up through the toilets. I thought a tsunami was coming, and I felt like I was being shaken
in a hammock.
PEGUERO (voice-over): Parra Villalobos who had been living in the United States under a political asylum status, was detained on Christmas Day in
2025 for driving without a valid license, and after more than six months being held in several ICE detention centers, he was deported under the
Trump administration. He says the images he has seen will never leave his mind.
VILLALOBOS (through translator): It was a white cloud. You could see all the dust all the way from Caracas to La Guaira. I saw staircases collapsing
and suddenly more than 1,000 vultures were flying all over the hotel. The guards were crying, and some because they found out their families had
died.
PEGUERO (voice-over): He shares that he saw many who were on the same flight also lose their lives that day.
VILLALOBOS (through translator): I feel very bad about everything and what I've lived through. I will never forget this, the children and the pregnant
woman who died. I stay outdoors all the time because I can't go into my house. I'm afraid, and I can't live like this.
PEGUERO (voice-over): His daughter has been using her flower shop as a donation center to help families in Venezuela. She hopes that one day her
and her son will be able to reunite with her father.
PARRA (through translator): I love him very much. I'm grateful to him, even though we may argue. I love him. God gave him a second chance at life,
and I know this is very painful for all those families who have lost loved ones. All we can do is trust in God.
PEGUERO (voice-over): Carolina Peguero, CNN, Orlando.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, many extraordinary stories. And just a note, President Trump continues to claim the U.S. runs Venezuela after seizing its leader earlier
this year. But the administration's response to the disaster has been far smaller than previous relief efforts. For instance, after Haiti's 2010
earthquake, Washington sent $3 billion, 7,000 troops, and halted deportations of Haitians to their shattered country. This time, it is $300
million, 900 military personnel, and no halt to deportations.
Let's turn now to the World Cup fever, a stunning comeback, and a devastating defeat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That is the sound of fans celebrating in Buenos Aires as Argentina advances to the quarterfinals, defeating Egypt on the final day
of the round of 16.
[13:50:00]
After trailing the pharos for most of the match, the defending champions scored three goals, including the game winner in stoppage time, sparking
even more Messi mania.
But the match had its controversial moments, including the video assistant referee, or VAR, overturning a goal from Egypt.
Now, all eyes are on the quarterfinals and a tournament already packed with surprises. CNN World Sports' Amanda Davies joins us from Atlanta. So,
Amanda, are the aftershocks of that Argentina-Egypt match still being felt?
AMANDA DAVIES, CNN WORLD SPORT: Yes, very much, Christiane. I mean, 24 hours on, I just have to continue to think what a privilege it was to be
there to witness this. I never take these moments for granted. I have to say, the difference in atmosphere here in Atlanta is marked.
There were -- I was amazed to see so many fans celebrating in Buenos Aires because it seemed they had all descended here for the game. But already,
the Albiceleste contingent have shipped over across to Kansas City to prepare for their quarterfinal against Switzerland.
But I mean, one of them said to me, we have to suffer in order to win. And boy, did they suffer against Egypt. You just had to see the emotion from
Leo Messi and their coach, Lionel Scaloni, at full time to see just how hard they had had to fight. I mean, two goals down on 79 minutes to an
Egyptian side who had only produced their first ever World Cup win at this tournament, at this stage of the competition for the first time.
The doubts definitely started to creep in when they'd missed as many chances as they had. Leo Messi had missed that penalty, of course, and the
fans were starting to think just maybe, maybe our reign as world champions is going to come to an end. But they have lost only nine games in 101 under
coach Lionel Scaloni's tenure.
And they dug deep. You can see why they're world champions. And Cristian Romero set them on their way. And then, of course, Messi with his moment to
very much swing the momentum in their favor.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, he never disappoints. But as you know, because you're reporting it, there's been some controversy, right? So, do you think
it's legitimate, the controversy that was raised over the VAR issue, you know, raised by some of the Egyptian players?
Let me get it absolutely straight. Some have accused officials of favoring Argentina after a goal was allowed for them, while one for Egypt was ruled
out. And Zico, whose goal was disallowed, claimed, quote, "It's clear the tournament has been fixed." Fresh controversy now as it's emerged that
France versus Morocco will be exclusively refereed by an Argentine team. And given that France is, you know, viewed as Argentina's biggest rival, is
there any legitimacy to this?
DAVIES: Yes, I mean, there was the immediate anger in the aftermath of the match. Those quotes coming very much in the heat of the moment from the
Egyptian coach and a number of the players. They've slept on it. And word coming out this morning that there has been an official appeal lodged by
the Egyptian Football Federation to FIFA to remove this officiating team from the remainder of the tournament. Rightly, as you mentioned, they're
citing these two incidents.
But if you look at the cross section of debate, all of these incidents, there are people on both sides of the fence. And VAR, a technology brought
in meant to remove this debate, all it has done across football seemingly has made the conversations louder, more emotive and more emphatic. And I
think the feeling across the board at this tournament has been on the whole, it has been fair.
Thomas Tuchel, the England boss, though, did call into question the standards around the England-Mexico match, saying it wasn't good enough.
But what you've got here is a tournament, an official team that they're being brought together from all around the world. There are training camps
for the referees, people trying to be all brought to the same standards, making decisions based on the same things. But it's human nature, isn't it,
that some people make one call and somebody else makes another. FIFA haven't commented as yet. There's been no official response.
But I've just got to say, Christiane, you wonder if what happened with the USA and President Trump making the call about the U.S. red card has sparked
the need and the feeling amongst other teams that they are able to ask these questions as well.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, that was such a shock around the world, that intervention by the president of the United States. Amanda, thank you very
much.
[13:55:00]
And if you were here, you'd be thrilled by the way the Brits are doing at Wimbledon, Arthur Ferry. And of course, everybody here is desperate for
Sunday's match, the next England versus Norway in the quarters. So -- Saturday's match, rather. Thank you so much indeed for joining us. The
atmosphere has been amazing.
And finally, space balls. Ever since a number of those washed up on Australian beaches, confusion and speculation have been rife over what they
actually are. Well, now some clarity. Australia's space agency says they are likely to be pressure vessels from a space launch vehicle. It says the
objects were recovered and determined to be safe, but warns that if anyone comes across any more of these suspected space debris to move away
immediately and alert the authorities.
The agency's comments may be a buzzkill for online jokesters who've put forward a slew of funny theories like that they were actually squid light
bulbs, alien eggs, or Christmas ornaments. Whatever it is, that is it for now.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
