Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Foreign Policy Adviser to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Ophir Falk; Interview with Chicago Council on Global Affairs President and CEO Leslie Vinjamuri; Interview with "Aging Out" Author Lucy Schiller. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 15, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: America has no greater ally in the world than Israel, and Israel has no greater ally than the United
States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Israel and the United States launched the war on Iran together, but are they still aligned on where it's headed? I speak to Ophir Falk,
foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're going to knock out all their power plants, we're going to knock out all their bridges, unless they get to the
table and negotiate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As the battle for Hormuz intensifies again, can allies trust a mercurial America? Leslie Vinjamuri, the head of the Chicago Council on
Global Affairs, joins me.
Also, three weeks after a devastating double earthquake in Venezuela, the government remains under fire for its response. Correspondent Stefano
Pozzebon reports from La Guaira.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUCY SCHILLER, AUTHOR, "AGING OUT": It's also, I would say, a huge amount of work just being an older person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- growing old in America, Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Lucy Schiller about her new book, "Aging Out."
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. America launched multiple strikes on Iran this morning, another in a wave
of attacks over the past several days. And by reimposing its naval blockade, Washington is resuming its efforts to force Iran back to the
negotiating table by threatening its economy. The U.S. Central Command claims the assaults, quote, "further degraded Iran's ability to attack
commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz."
More than 30 civilians have been killed in recent strikes, the Tehran government said today, and scores more injured. Iran responded, though,
launching multiple drone and missile strikes on U.S. military assets in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan.
Just across the border, Israel is watching all of this and increasingly at odds with the White House over Iran's strategy. President Trump has told
the government to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and Syria, and now the State Department says that after two days of brokering talks in Rome,
Israel is expected to begin making withdrawals from southern Lebanon. This is all a major test for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he heads to
national elections in late October. It would be the first election since the October 7th Hamas attacks.
For more on all of this, let's bring in Ophir Falk. He's a key foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he's joining us from
Jerusalem. Welcome to the program, Mr. Falk.
Let me start by asking you about Iran. How much does the Israeli government go along with Mr. Trump's efforts to make peace with Iran?
OPHIR FALK, FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER TO ISRAELI PM BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, thank you for having me, Christiane. First of all, we have a common goal.
America and Israel have a common goal that Iran will never have nuclear capabilities. They will never have a nuclear bomb. If President Trump
thinks that that can be achieved by negotiations, great. But deal or no deal, the prime minister has made clear that Iran will never have nuclear
bombs as long as he is prime minister.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Falk, I will just say again and again that I think everybody believes that. The whole world believes that. The thing is, which I wonder
which worries you, is that President Trump at the moment is not so much focusing on the nuclear picture, but much more, of course, on the immediate
issue, which is the Strait of Hormuz.
Where does the prime minister stand on all of this? Let me just say, if a deal is reached, according to the New York Times, a return to full-blown
conflict is widely seen as preferable to many Israeli military and government officials. Is that the case?
FALK: Well, the president and the prime minister have made it absolutely crystal clear that the number one objective is for Iran not to have nuclear
bombs. Now, the world can see how Iran is blackmailing the world with the Straits, with the Hormuz Straits. You could only imagine what they would do
if they had nuclear bombs. They would blackmail the world, and there would be very little that the world could do about it.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Let me play this soundbite from Prime Minister Netanyahu earlier this week, when he said Israel was ready for anything.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): We are prepared for any scenario. I can say one thing. Actually, I will say this
to the leaders of Iran. Do not count on it being quiet if you attack us. Do not count on a rerun because it will not be a rerun, which was already
powerful enough. This will be a different event, much more powerful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, Mr. Falk, since you are a key foreign policy adviser to the prime minister, after all these months of this war, what
more do you think Israel or the United States or combined can and would do have you in fact tried everything or haven't you?
FALK: Well, we have degraded them significantly. The main objective was to remove the nuclear threat to Israel and to the world at large, to degrade
their missile capability and to create the conditions for the Iranian people to step up to the plate and to take their destiny in their own
hands.
We have made incredible progress, as Professor David Albridge (ph) has reported in his studies. We have diminished their nuclear capabilities
significantly. We've taken out their 20 top nuclear scientists. We've taken out thousands of their missiles. We've hit their sites harder than ever
before. And Iran is weaker than ever before.
Now, again, the president thinks he can get all the material out, all the dust out by means of negotiations. Right now, he's negotiating with bombs.
But at the end of the day, if he can make a deal by negotiating this, great. But deal or no deal, Iran will not have nuclear bombs.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's talk about the other aspect of this. You mentioned and clearly President Trump mentioned at the beginning of all of this and
so did Prime Minister Netanyahu, that the conditions for the Iranian people to take their destiny in their own hands were being created. That's what
they said, the prime minister and the president, and that essentially regime change was a goal.
And we know now from so much deep reporting from the New York Times, from Haaretz in Israel, that that has been a very, very key aim of Prime
Minister Netanyahu. So, you must have read all these articles about some of the planning. And I don't know -- I just want to ask you about the plan to
bring back the former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and install him instead of the ayatollahs.
Tell me about -- well, what do you think of that? Did you advise the prime minister that that would be a good idea?
FALK: Well, I have nothing on that, Christiane. I have nothing on that. What I can tell you is our aim was to remove the nuclear threat, diminish
the missile threat, and to create the conditions for the Iranian people to take their own destiny in their own hands. It's up to Iranian people. And
unfortunately, they've been slaughtered on the streets of Tehran. Up to 52,000 innocent Iranian people have been slaughtered by this ayatollah
regime.
Now, I'm sure that the Iranian people don't want to remove one ayatollah and get another ayatollah. They deserve freedom. And we should free -- or
the Iranian people should have freedom.
AMANPOUR: I think many, many people would agree with you on that. Many Iranians, of course, all Iranians would agree with you on that. However,
the methodology is interesting because it's tried and tested. And so, far, it seems to have failed. Because it is clear from all the reporting that
Prime Minister Netanyahu really wanted regime change. He talked to President Trump about it. His Mossad chief went and talked to President
Trump about it.
And key to this was replacing the ayatollahs with a -- you know, with the former prime minister or the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, as you
well know, was much hated by Israel for his antisemitism, for his Holocaust denial, and for raising very aggressively the whole nuclear issue and the
nuclear threat.
So, according to Haaretz, people running Israel's intelligence and military didn't believe in this plan that was brought to them by the Mossad. But,
they say, quote, "because the prime minister stood behind that madness," in further quotes, "the subject kept resurfacing."
[13:10:00]
Why do you think, Mr. Falk, that the prime minister insisted on this plan, which, as we now know, completely failed, and most people believed it was a
farce from the beginning? What was it, do you think, that kept Prime Minister Netanyahu believing that this was a viable option?
FALK: Well, first of all, let's stick to the facts, Christiane. Regime change was never defined as the goal. The goal was to remove the
existential threat posed by the ayatollah regime with their nuclear capabilities, degrade their missile capabilities, and to create the
conditions for the Iranian people to step up to the plate.
The achievements of the war have been incredible, have been incredible. Iran is weaker than ever before. America and Israel are stronger than ever
before. Those are the facts. So, let's stick to the facts. Regime change was never the objective. Again, removing the threat of the nuclear threat,
and the president and the prime minister are fully aligned on that.
AMANPOUR: OK. I understand about removing the nuclear threat, obviously, but clearly this deep reporting suggests that one way to get that done was
regime change. So, let me ask you, whether you say it was a goal or not, does Israel still believe regime change is important and even possible?
FALK: You can ask me that question three different ways. I have nothing on that. I'm telling you, what we have was to remove the existential threat of
the nuclear bomb that Iran was rushing towards, to degrade their missile capability, and to create the conditions.
Now, the achievements have been unprecedented. Iran is weaker than ever. America and Israel are stronger than ever.
AMANPOUR: Right. Let's get back then to Lebanon. Because we know what's been going on with Lebanon. It is actually part of the Memorandum of
Understanding. And after all that's been going on over the last few months between Israel and Hezbollah, there have been U.S.-brokered talks, the
latest round in Rome, and now the State Department says that these successful talks between Lebanon and Israel, the government of Lebanon and
Israel, will lead to Israel withdrawing troops from southern Lebanon. What more can you give me on that?
FALK: What I can give you on that is that we reached an historic agreement with Lebanon, brokered by the United States, brokered by Secretary Rubio.
We reached an historic framework agreement whereby, for the first time in 45 years, Lebanon recognizes Israel's sovereignty and agrees that Lebanon
has to be free of Hezbollah. We have to demilitarize southern Lebanon and we have to have Hezbollah lay down their hands.
We don't have a war with Lebanon. We had a war with Hezbollah that was holding Lebanon hostage for 45 years. And how was that agreement with
Lebanon made possible? Because we degraded Hezbollah significantly. We hit them like we've never hit them before. After they attacked us on October 8,
2023, we hit them back. And we took out 8,000 Hezbollah terrorists. They had 150,000 missiles aimed at our city centers, at our civilians. We took
that down to a handful of missiles, maybe 8,000 missiles. And we have to take that out, too.
But we have an agreement now with the Lebanese government, direct talks with the Lebanese government, whereby we agree Hezbollah must lay down its
arms and southern Lebanon must be demilitarized.
AMANPOUR: Right. That's fine from that perspective. But from your perspective, you agree that there will be a withdrawal from southern
Lebanon by Israeli forces per the State Department's latest announcement.
FALK: Well, Israel is fully aware of the need to deploy or redeploy within the agreed areas of where we're having to pilot now. We agreed to two areas
where the Lebanese government can prove their capabilities of dismantling Hezbollah. And we'll have that as a test case, two different pilots.
But if we've learned one thing, our number one lesson from October 7th, the October 7th atrocities where Hamas invaded Israel, butchered 1,200 innocent
people, raped women, burnt babies alive, if we learned one thing from that lesson is that we cannot have genocidal terrorist organizations or regimes
anywhere near our border, not in the south with Hamas and not in the north with Hezbollah. And what we're doing today is we're implementing that
lesson.
AMANPOUR: OK. Just to be clear, because it is, you know, quite emotional as well, the IDF says this is specifically about withdrawal. And as you
say, the pilot areas are in question there. But the word they're using is withdrawal. So, I think that's really interesting. And hopefully that'll
lead to some peace in the region.
[13:15:00]
Now, let me ask you about the United States and Israel. As you are well aware, there is a lot of tension right now, not just between President
Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu on occasion, but in -- yes, yes. What is it?
FALK: I'm just saying the wording that -- I'm saying, the wording that was used, and if you read the framework agreement, the wording that is used is
redeploy. The word withdraw is never mentioned there.
AMANPOUR: Yes, which by definition is withdrawing from those areas. So, we can go on and be semantic about it. But the United States expects
withdrawal, whatever you want to call it.
Now, regarding the U.S. and Israel, what do you make of and how do you recommend Israel resumes its close relationship with the United States?
Clearly, it does have one with the government. But you see what's going on amongst the people of Israel, of the United States. You see the polls that
are plummeting in terms of support for Israel, like the historic support has been.
Do you think there needs to be some action by your government, particularly coming up to elections? Because the whole Israel-U.S. relationship is
vital, of course. Are there changes to be made to get back on an even keel? Because the whole war, obviously Hamas attacks, and then Israel's war on
Gaza has changed the dynamic between Israel and the people of the United States.
FALK: Well, I think the president just said that we have never had better relations. The relationship between the president and the prime minister is
fantastic. They've met seven times since President Trump was re-elected.
There was never better coordination or cooperation between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel or between the armed
forces, the armed forces of the Israeli armed forces and the American armed forces. There was never better cooperation or coordination. And we are true
partners in war and true partners in peace.
Now, yes, we are concerned about drifts in public opinion. But all we can do is continue to tell the truth, to win the war, win the peace, and to
continue to tell the truth.
AMANPOUR: I just need to ask you about -- you know, you talk about this close relationship, but we saw what happened with a member of the U.S.
Congress who was in the West Bank and who was very severely aggressed by not just settlers, but by members of the IDF, president or rather Prime
Minister Netanyahu called the whole thing, you know, juvenile delinquents.
But that kind of thing doesn't look good to the American constituency that you're trying to appeal to. Do you think that was a mistake for him to be
treated like that, Ro Khanna?
FALK: Well, first of all, again, I think we should stick to the facts. The American embassy -- or the American embassy to Israel debunked that story
completely. It was it was all made up. And I don't want to get into American politics. I don't want to get into the left wing, ultra-left-wing
politics in the United States. And what exactly was the objective of this congressman. But the story was false.
Now, the Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria are the most law-abiding citizens in Israel. Now, it's true, there are a handful of juvenile
delinquents that are -- they don't come from Judea and Samaria, they come from other places. And we will not accept any vigilante. We're a land of
law. Israel is a land of law. And we will not accept any vigilante.
What is important to understand is that the crime level in Judea and Samaria is much lower than it is in London, where you're sitting right now.
AMANPOUR: Well, I don't know about the stats, but certainly in Judea and Samaria is what you call the occupied West Bank. But let me ask you this,
then you say they're the most law-abiding. You know that a Palestinian was killed last year by a settler. His death was caught on camera. He was
fatally killed by an Israeli. And I'm not even going to put his name out. I don't need to. Despite all the evidence, he has not been indicted by
Israeli authorities. And I'm going to have to say that you say it's totally made up and a lie, the story by Ro Khanna, but they have the evidence and
their version of it is out there as well.
So, about the about the -- you know, the person who's accused of murdering a Palestinian, why would they not be held up to the law if you say they're
the most law-abiding people?
FALK: Well, Israel does hold up the law and they are brought to justice. Anybody who breaks the law is brought to justice.
[13:20:00]
And that incident that you're talking about, that I'm not fully familiar with, I'm sure was investigated and will be investigated in full.
Just today, though, however, just today, it's peculiar you're not mentioning that, but just today a Jewish settler from Judea and Samaria was
stoned, almost stoned to death, on her way home driving her car. That happens daily. That happens daily. Palestinian terror against Jewish,
against the Jewish community happens daily. The fact that you're bringing an incident from a year ago that has been investigated and will be
investigated, and if the law was broken, people will be brought to justice. But the fact that you're bringing something from a year ago tells a big
story.
AMANPOUR: Well, no, no. To be fair, Mr. Falk, I talked about Ro Khanna, which was not a year ago, but look, we're running out of time. I appreciate
you being on the program, and we will continue to have this discussion. Thank you for being with us.
Now, later in the program, the ripple effect of conflict in the Strait of Hormuz from the Gulf to Europe and beyond.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: The growing tension in the Strait of Hormuz means renewed risk on the global economy, sparking new fears of surging inflation and mixed
messages from Washington, including this week's flip-flop from the President Trump himself on imposing fees on cargo in the Strait of Hormuz.
These are all rattling allies. They are now shifting their strategic reliance away from Washington, dealing with what the Canadian prime
minister, Mark Carney, has called a rupture in the world order.
Now, joining us to discuss this is Leslie Vinjamuri. She's a foreign policy scholar and head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Welcome back to
our program.
Can I first start by asking you a few basics? You might have heard the senior foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu. I mean, verbally
and out there and publicly, regime change, I thought, was a key stated objective.
LESLIE VINJAMURI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS: You know, in the beginning, back late February, there were multiple
objectives. And I think the dominant view of Americans, the American public certainly, was that there were so many objectives that it wasn't clear what
the plan was and what the goal was. There was certainly a point when there was a talk about regime change.
And, you know, to be very clear, Americans have almost no appetite, most Americans, for regime change. And that goes back a very long way. But
February 28th was a long time ago. And as we know, President Trump was fairly hot on the heels of having taken Maduro out of Venezuela. So, things
have moved very quickly.
AMANPOUR: So, it's moved now, after six months or so, to this point where we're at, which is a five-day, at least, you know, exchange of fire and, in
some cases, very heavy fire, all centered not necessarily on regime change, not even necessarily on the nuclear fire, but on the status of the Strait
of Hormuz.
From your perspective, what exactly is happening right now as President Trump launches military strikes, the Iranians fire back, there's talk --
well, the Americans have reimposed the naval blockade to pressure the Iranians to get back to the table. Describe what you think is actually
happening now.
[13:25:00]
VINJAMURI: Well, first of all, it's a lot of disruption, chaos, and lack of a clear strategic plan that's being implemented in a sequence that
clearly doesn't seem to be rationally driven. It doesn't seem to be a plan. There's a lot of reaction.
But, you know, the way I see it is that, as you just said, it's come down to, if it started out as being maybe about regime change, maybe about
Iran's nuclear capabilities, it's certainly whittled down to being very much about getting that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and for
President Trump being able to do that while not ceding the ground to Iran.
And everybody knows that Iran has gained a lot of leverage through its ability now to weaponize the Strait of Hormuz. And I think that we felt for
a period of time that the ceasefire was something that was in everybody's interest, including President Trump. And I think what he's realized is that
he, from his own perspective, needs to continue to use leverage. Right now, it's that blockade in order to not completely cede control to Iran that,
you know, it may turn on again, off again access to the Strait of Hormuz.
AMANPOUR: And, of course, this wasn't an issue before the war was launched. But by the same token, Iran is under very, very dire pressure at
home. Its economy is very bad. By its own admission, it says the war has caused $270 billion in damage. And the economy has been in tatters. And
that's what launched the protests against the regime back in December, January.
So, what do you think about the internal dynamics that appear to be showing up inside Iran right now, with the very hardliners wanting to keep taking
the war to the United States, with the negotiators, slightly less hardliners, understanding that they've got issues and wanting also a
negotiated end to this?
VINJAMURI: Look, I can speak from the point of view of the United States and President Trump. And what I would estimate is that he sees that
division. He loves to play on weakness and drive a wedge if there is one to be driven in a gap that's opening up internally within Iran, as you've
suggested. And that would be a reason for him to double back down, to put that blockade back, to strike.
And the tragic thing for the people of Iran is now we're listening to the U.S. president threaten to hit power plants, civilian infrastructure. I
mean, things that are far beyond the bounds of anything approaching adherence to international humanitarian law, not something that we talk
about very much anymore. But it's leverage and it's leverage playing on weakness. And President Trump, for this -- for him, this is, quite frankly,
bread and butter tactics.
AMANPOUR: Of course, those threats were similar to ones the president made several months ago and then he didn't carry them out. But as you say, it's
leverage. Do you think the United States thinks that the Houthis in Yemen could add to the issues, add to the problems, the economic blockades by
blocking the sort of gateway to the Red Sea? We understand that Saudi Arabia has launched some attacks on Sana'a in order to give a message that
that shouldn't happen. But do you see Iran engaging those proxies?
VINJAMURI: Look, this is what it looks like. It looks like, allegedly, possibly, the United States gave license to Saudi to respond. And again, I
think this is evidence not of the United States. And it's an incredibly important distinction right now. My organization knows a lot about what the
public thinks. The public are not happy about this war. They're not supportive of Israel. They're not supportive of the war. You name it,
they're not on side.
But the president of the United States of America is not concerned about the risk of escalation. At least his behavior does not suggest that he is.
And he's clearly concerned that Iran could double down on its use of proxies again in the region. He's clearly worried that he's losing. He has
been losing, not strictly in terms of America's ability to weaken Iran militarily. The United States government has done that.
But in terms of achieving what it wants to achieve, which is open seas when it comes to that Strait and America feeling, and this president feeling
like he has the upper hand. And yes, so what you've pointed to is clearly evidence that all is not well. And that Iran is potentially turning to old
tactics. And the United States is taking the bait.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And what about the United States and its NATO allies? In the aftermath of the Ankara summit, a lot of chat has been going on about
whether they should do the Rutte mode of staying close to President Trump or the Macron, Carney, et cetera, mode of trying to be more self-
sufficient.
Let me just read you something from the undersecretary of defense, Elbridge Colby. He has been talking and responding to Carney of Canada, the prime
minister, calling for the so-called middle powers to have a strategy. So, this is Colby. We are not concerned that this is a serious possibility.
Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will think it is and waste valuable time, money and political capital on a distraction.
The simple fact of the matter is that no alternative country or countries can compete with the United States defense industrial base, either in
quantity or quality. What's your reaction to that?
VINJAMURI: I mean, I think Elbridge Colby and quite frankly, this administration and quite frankly, previous administrations continue to send
mixed signals. They wish Europe to do more, spend more, be more independent, be more reliable, be more consistent. But when there's
evidence, as there is now, that Europe is moving very much to do that, greater defense spending on the part of America's European NATO allies,
greater increase this year than at any point since 1953. When they do that, there's a real concern that Europe might actually be strong enough to make
decisions that are separate or different from the United States.
So, I guess the second thing I'd say is he's not wrong. In the current moment, he's not wrong that the United States is massively ahead,
especially if we recognize the fact, which is that Europe is not Europe. Europe is a number of different states that are working very hard to try
and have joint procurement, interoperability, to spend more in ways that are complementary within Europe. And that is an aspiration, and they're
moving towards it. But Europeans know that they have a long way to go.
And I think that to your original question, the reason that it's not clear what the strategy should be is because, first of all, Trump is difficult to
deal with. We know that. Different strategies work in different circumstances on different days. But also, Europe has to bide its time,
spend more, build more, keep America in, but play that long-term game also, which is to be able to be truly independent.
There's a lot that's going to happen between now and that hoped-for moment when Europeans are aligned internally and more independent. And one thing
that I hope changes is American leadership and America's preferences for what it wants from Europe and how it seeks to govern. And quite frankly, I
think it will change.
AMANPOUR: Really interesting perspective. Thank you so much. Leslie Vinjamuri joining us from the United States. Thanks a lot.
Now, three weeks after the earthquakes in Venezuela, anger keeps rising at the government's response to the disaster. Contributor Stefano Pozzebon
reports from near the epicenter of the quakes in La Guaira.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR (voice-over): Three weeks since Venezuela was hit by twin destructive earthquakes, it is far too early to
even think of turning the page. According to government officials, more than 4,500 people have been killed. Many will rest nameless here. A new
mass graveyard expanded last week in La Guaira, close to the disaster zone. The true death toll we may never know. Thousands of people are still
looking for missing loved ones.
It is just one of several questions thrown at local authorities. The U.S.- backed acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, who has been in power since January, is being criticized for a delayed and insufficient response to the
most devastating natural disaster her country has faced in this century.
POZZEBON (through translator): Who decided how, why, and for what purpose the military would be deployed in this catastrophe?
DELCY RODRIGUEZ, VENEZUELAN ACTING PRESIDENT (through translator): Our system combines both armed forces and civil protection. That's why I gave
the order, and we immediately issued the decree activating the whole response in accordance with the disaster law.
[13:35:00]
POZZEBON (voice-over): But the government's reassurances, including the deployment of 19,000 military officials does not square with our own
experience on the ground in Venezuela.
POZZEBON: This used to be a golf course. La Guaira was a tourist hotspot by the Caribbean Sea. And so, here is where tourists will come and play
golf and relax. Now, of course, it's a tent city for hundreds of displaced, many of whom actually used to live there in those blocks. And every day
they wake up and they see their homes and flats broken down by the brutality of the earthquakes.
POZZEBON (voice-over): It is here we met Zoe Santander. Back then, she hadn't been able to see her son in 10 days. They were separated in the
aftermath of the quakes. Zoe made it out unharmed. Her seven-year-old, Xavier, was trapped under the rubble.
ZOE SANTANDER, LA GUAIRA RESIDENT (through translator): There was nothing, nothing outside, no firefighters, nothing. Finding ourselves like that,
what are we going to do? Just wait for anyone who could come and help us.
POZZEBON (voice-over): To this day, Zoe still doesn't know where her son is. Nothing remains of their home, a vast housing complex built by
Rodriguez's predecessor, the late president, Hugo Chavez. This year's earthquakes, just the latest in a seemingly never-ending run of tragedies
suffered by the Venezuelan people.
A few days after the tremors, we met one person whose life chronicled that struggle. Like so many, 45-year-old primary school teacher Ninoska
Gutierrez emigrated in 2018, seeking better opportunities and a decent salary to support her family. She lived in Peru, crossed the jungle and
moved to the U.S. in the following years. Just as Venezuela's infrastructure fell into disrepair.
Listening to her is like living through dozens of stories I covered as a foreign correspondent for almost 10 years. The Venezuelan economic collapse
under Nicolas Maduro, the exodus of millions of migrants to other countries in Latin America and then to the United States, and the crackdown on
undocumented migrants under Donald Trump's second administration.
Last month, Ninoska was detained by Miami police over an incident and charged with a misdemeanor, deported to Caracas just hours before the
quakes hit. She was resting in a hotel when the ground started shaking.
NINOSKA GUTIERREZ, EARTHQUAKE SURVIVOR (through translator): A wall fell on top of me, thank God on my legs and not on my head, or on my arms. That
wall collapsed on me, and then a beam, or something like that, came down too. It ended up trapping my legs.
POZZEBON (voice-over): Incredibly, Ninoska made it out of the hotel alive. And yet, it is a drop in the ocean.
The coastal road in La Guaira is now lined with debris of collapsed buildings. The waves of the Caribbean Sea crashing on the remains of so
many lives shattered. For those who survived it, it is now time to pick up the pieces. Looking somehow to rebuild the life.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: What a miserable time for those people in Venezuela. Coming up, the realities of elder care in the United States and why so many are afraid
of getting old there. Author Rebecca Schiller speaks to Haris Sreenivasan about her new book, "Aging Out." That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: So, what does it mean to age in America when basic tasks like bathing, grocery shopping, paying bills become just too difficult? Who can
the elderly turn to for help? Professional assistance and nursing facilities are expensive. So, more than 80 percent of Americans over 65
rely on family and friends.
And as author Lucy Schiller knows well, it is no small task. Her new book, "Aging Out," draws on her personal experience caring for her own
grandmother during the COVID-19 pandemic. And she speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about realities of elder care today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Lucy Schiller, thanks so much for joining us. You've written a book recently.
It's called "Aging Out: An Exploration of Caregiving Community and How Americans Grow Old." It takes a good deep dive into what I would call the
elder care industry in this country, but it was personal. Why did you start this?
LUCY SCHILLER, AUTHOR, "AGING OUT": It's a great question. One of the reasons I started it was because I realized that I knew almost nothing
about the daily realities of what it's like to be an older person in this country.
And the main way that I kind of realized that level of ignorance in myself was by taking care of or helping to take care of one of my grandmothers at
the beginning of the COVID pandemic. We took her out of an assisted living facility because we were nervous about the spread of COVID inside. And I
moved up kind of the only person in my family without a job, so very convenient.
I moved up and lived with her for a few months and really kind of saw firsthand some of the realities of what it's like to be an older person in
this country. And I also kind of realized I knew nothing about the inner workings of where she had been living for the past 10 or so years. I would
visit this assisted living facility on occasion, but that's a far cry, you know, from actually residing inside of it.
SREENIVASAN: You write, in the language of elder care, she needed help with her ADLs, her activities of daily life. She needed someone to massage
her arthritic feet with Arnica cream, to help put on her shoes, to make her food, to do her laundry, to keep the place clean, to go get groceries, to
stay on top of the many medications and health needs, to make doctor's appointments and get her to them.
And this was your first experience with this. You know, and it's interesting, so many people just reading that list alone would say, wow,
that's a lot. That's a full-time job. And yet, the people who are caring for so many of their loved ones in this country are doing that in addition
to a full-time job.
SCHILLER: Yes, very often. And maybe in addition to raising their own kids or any number of obligations that they may have. So, it's a huge amount of
work. It's also, I would say, a huge amount of work just being an older person and needing that level of help or even just kind of wanting a family
close by or a loved one of some kind close by to connect with and talk through this really interesting and complex phase of life with.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there's a stat that's in here. It says the national median cost for a semi-private room in a nursing home was $110,000 a year
in 2025. And that is staggering. So, help our audience understand kind of the lay of the land here. How did this become a for-profit industry? Who
owns it? Who's profiting? Just give me an idea of when people get old in this country. In general, what is happening to them? Where are they going?
SCHILLER: Yes. So, you know, Medicare was passed in the late '60s. And with the passage of Medicare, there was a huge, sudden springing up of
nursing homes and the nursing home industry. A lot has changed, kind of like Cliff's notes version. A lot has changed in those kind of decades.
There was a movement, particularly in the '70s, in response to conditions in these early nursing homes to make sure that nursing homes were actually
places that offered good quality care and didn't, in fact, maybe even get people more sick than they were when they entered and were, you know, solid
places in which an older person or a person with a disability could receive quality care.
[13:45:00]
Since then, there's also been assisted living facilities and the rise of assisted living facilities which, so with nursing homes, generally you pay
for those via Medicaid. And you hear all of these stories, right, about people having to, quote, "spend down in order to qualify for Medicaid in
order to enter a nursing home."
So, what that might mean is, you know, you have to maybe even sell your house in order to get into a nursing home. Nursing homes can be for-profit.
They can be non-profit. There's a whole range of them. They're not, you know, uniformly bad or uniformly good. Some of them are excellent. Some of
them are maybe not so much. There are huge kind of conglomerates behind a lot of nursing homes. You know, there's private equity now in that space.
Assisted living is another part of that landscape. And with assisted living, you have to go what's called private pay. So, if you're entering an
assisted living, generally speaking, this is not always the case, but very much the majority of the case of the time, you're paying out of your own
pocket in order to enter an assisted living facility. And these places can be exorbitantly expensive. And so --
SREENIVASAN: Give me an idea of how much.
SCHILLER: Anywhere from probably lower end, like $5,000 a month to way, way, way higher than that. There's also what are called continuing care
retirement communities, which that's the type of thing that sometimes people think of, you know, when they think of aging in a really nice place.
You enter -- you pay a lot of money. You enter at a certain age that you've agreed upon kind of contractually with this place, and then you kind of age
there through whatever your body decides to do. Maybe you end up needing to go into their memory care facility. Maybe you need a, you know, maybe you
don't need too much help. But either way, you're kind of surrounded by all sorts of people with all sorts of kind of experiences of oldness in there.
And then, finally, there's aging in place. What that term tends to mean is, you know, that you're at home and that you're not in a quote unquote
facility of some kind. You're aging in a place of your own kind of desire and maybe familiarity. And so, there's been an increase in kind of state
support in some ways for that option. There are certain places that, you know, help you, you know, install grab bars in your bathroom if that's
something that you need, or provide you with reimbursement for caretaking, caregiving services, people coming into your home.
SREENIVASAN: There is Medicare, and that is, you know, the option that so many people get because they're not -- they don't qualify. They don't have
low enough income for Medicaid. And within Medicare, there's this big fork in the road of Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans.
SCHILLER: Yes.
SREENIVASAN: For most people, again, that are not in that part of life yet, haven't done the homework, what's the big difference and what's
happened to this?
SCHILLER: That's a great question. So, first of all, I'll just note that Medicare does not cover long-term care. And this is something that very
often surprises even older people themselves when they get to a moment of needing to suddenly pay for long-term care. So, that's a really kind of
important basic fact here.
Medicare Advantage is what I would call the privatized arm of Medicare. So, Medicare, as you said, is a public program. There's one Medicare. There are
about 4,000 Medicare Advantage plans. And what these are, are insurance company brokered private plans that still bill Medicare, the public, you
know, insurance option for people for their services.
Medicare Advantage plans have been reported, you know, to be draining the Medicare fund, particularly by, and this I think is coming from a New York
Times report on it, insurance companies that are using and selling Medicare Advantage plans, developing this kind of systems to make patients appear as
sick as possible and then bill accordingly.
So, denials of care in Medicare Advantage plans are relatively high. Often Medicare Advantage plans are heavily marketed to people. And particularly,
I saw a study that underlined that they're very often marketed to black and Hispanic patients. They also are very often involving what we're all
probably familiar with at this point, this term prior authorization, right, that you need to be authorized by your doctor or your insurance company,
rather, for a particular procedure before they decide whether or not they're going to reimburse you.
[13:50:00]
And a lot of reporting has been done on this, that Medicare Advantage plans, there are many stories out there about people suddenly realizing
that their surgery isn't going to be covered by this plan that has offered them all of these wonderful freebies. They can be anything from incredibly
affordable and cheap to incredibly expensive. They're -- I would say, the personalized, privatized version of Medicare.
And so, you can really kind of choose almost an a la carte option, type option, like what you want from your insurance plan, whether or not it's
going to work for you down the road, you know, fingers crossed.
SREENIVASAN: How does aging and the options that you have in America differ based on your race or your income level or your gender?
SCHILLER: Well, statistically, the people who tend to make it to old age are white women. So, that's a pretty important fact to consider. And in my
book, a reviewer just pointed this out, which I thought was a really smart point, that a lot of my subjects or the people who I'm speaking with in the
book are women.
But your class really, really, really influences your experience as an older person. So, you know, for instance, if you're on Medicaid, that is
going to really kind of whittle your options in a very particular direction.
When it comes to long-term care, certainly, you know, that means you're eligible to get into a nursing home. But that doesn't necessarily mean that
you're going to be going into an assisted living facility or a continuing care retirement community, both of which are kind of the province of more
moneyed people.
And it's part of my book. You know, I toured some of these places and I had this strange emotional experience in a continuing care retirement community
because I just felt like no one I know is going to be able to experience something like this. This is amazing. It's beautiful.
It's like all of these older people, there was a woodworking shop, there was a swimming pool, there were people maintaining the gardens outside.
It's a place where residents really like run the place. It's like very insistent on resident autonomy and self-direction. And I thought this is
like, this is the ideal, you know, if you're deciding to live in a community rather than necessarily age in place inside your own home. And
yet, you know, it would be financially out of reach for nearly everyone that I know, myself included.
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you look at this uniquely American problem in some ways, is there a format that we can adopt? Are there countries that
are doing it better? What can we -- what's a good idea that we can steal?
SCHILLER: Well, to be honest, I would just say universal health care across the spectrum would be a wonderful place to start. You know, one of
the things that I really wish that we could do in general is just have more intergenerational connection.
A person who I looked at in the book is the famous elder activist, Maggie Coon, and she was a huge advocate for intergenerational housing and lived
with younger people as an older woman for decades. And I spoke with some of them who remembered what that experience was like for them so many years,
you know, after the fact, and they found it to be totally life changing. So, I think that's something a lot of other countries have that we actually
already do have small versions of that happening in the United States in various cities.
But I think in general, you know, maybe if we could talk about it on an individual level for a second, like, you know, thinking of yourself as
someone who ideally, and I'm speaking here as a young-ish person, is going to grow old. Like, I don't want to preclude connections with older people
currently in my life. I want to learn from them. I want to connect with them. I want to be surprised and changed and moved by them in the same way
that hopefully I can do the same for them.
And I think more than anything, like, trying to think about dissolving walls between older people and younger is something to really think
through, particularly as younger people who have really been steeped in, I would say, a lot of anti-old person rhetoric for many years now.
SREENIVASAN: The book is called "Aging Out," author Lucy Schiller, thanks so much for your time.
SCHILLER: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, if you could taste the stars, it just might be a little sweet. Astronomers have detected a type of sugar near the center of
the Milky Way. No, not the chocolate bar, but the one in space.
[13:55:00]
Discovered using these telescopes in Spain, the sugar floats in clouds of dust and gas, and it's the same as in raspberries apparently. It's not the
first-time samples from the Asteroid Bennu from a while back contained a sprinkle of other types of sugars. Let's not talk about the health issues
around sugar. Apparently, it's a key ingredient for intergalactic life.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
