Return to Transcripts main page

The Amanpour Hour

Interview with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney; Interview with Former White House Coordinator for Arms control Gary Samore; A Political Revolution in Trump's America; Rare 2007 Visit Inside Iran's Nuclear Facility in Isfahan; Remembering Journalist Rod Nordland. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired June 28, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:43]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to THE AMANPOUR HOUR.

Here's where we're headed this week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They had a war. They fought. Now they're going back to their world.

AMANPOUR: An extraordinary war over Iran's nuclear facilities appears to be over. What comes next in the Middle East and for diplomacy.

My exclusive conversation with Canada's new prime minister, Mark Carney, at this week's NATO summit.

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: And the question is does that diplomacy really get traction and move to ending this risk of nuclear proliferation? And does it lead as well to broader -- well, a broader ceasefire in the Middle East, including in Gaza.

AMANPOUR: Then --

TRUMP: The site is obliterated.

AMANPOUR: A public row over how far those massive strikes set back Iran's nuclear program. Former White House coordinator for arms control, Gary Samore joins me.

GARY SAMORE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COORDINATOR FOR ARMS CONTROL: Certainly, the war has increased. Iran's rationale for having nuclear weapons as a way to defend themselves and deter future attacks from the U.S. and Israel.

AMANPOUR: Plus, from my archives --

The Iranian government is saying that this is a transparency visit designed to show the world what it claims to be its peaceful nuclear program.

A rare visit in 2007 to one of the very facilities targeted by Israel and the United States, Iran's nuclear plant in Isfahan.

And China eyes opportunity amid Trumpian chaos at home and abroad.

And finally, a tribute to a wonderful war reporter, our friend and colleague Rod Nordland.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

And it's been one of the most extraordinary weeks in global geopolitics.

While a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding, the strikes by the U.S. And Israel that brought the region to the brink last weekend may have exposed a much deeper crisis.

On the one hand, western leaders praise the degradation of the Iranian nuclear program but the furious debate over whether they were, quote, "obliterated" or not masks a more fundamental question whether before the bombings, Iran was able to save enough centrifuges and highly- enriched uranium to be able to continue its nuclear program.

In the meantime, norms established after World War II are increasingly being replaced with a growing law of the jungle, where force and brute strength take precedence.

And it's against that backdrop that world leaders met at this week's NATO summit in the Netherlands. I spoke there with the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has stood up to President Trump's most extreme pronouncements on Canada. And he's vowed to lead a coalition on the basis of universal values and norms.

We spoke before Trump announced he was pulling out of trade talks with Canada. And here's our exclusive conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Carney, welcome to the program.

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: What do you make of the Iranian response? I mean, there was literally everybody on the edge of their seats as to whether this was going to be massive and trigger another massive U.S. retaliation.

In the end, it was, in their words, proportional, and in President Trump's words, kind of a weak response. And he actually thanked the Iranians for even giving them all a heads up so, they got everybody out of harm's way.

CARNEY: I think the military action -- I would lean towards President Trump's interpretation of it. The military action was also a diplomatic move by Iran. It was -- I mean, we never welcome obviously hostilities and reactions, but it was proportionate, it was de- escalatory.

It appears to have been previewed, which allowed -- and there are Canadian soldiers at the Qatari base as well --

AMANPOUR: Did you get them out of harm's way?

CARNEY: They were out of harm's way, yes.

AMANPOUR: So, it's par for the course really, and it gives, as far as you're concerned, an opening for diplomacy.

CARNEY: It gives an opening for diplomacy. I think that's the right way to put it. And the question is, does that diplomacy really get traction and move to ending this risk of nuclear proliferation.

[11:04:55]

CARNEY: And does it lead as well to broader -- well, a broader ceasefire in the Middle East, including in Gaza.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to get to Gaza because I know it's incredibly important to you and to so many people around the world.

Do you see a way -- because they insist on having nuclear capacity and certainly civilian nuclear reactors -- do you see a way? Has anybody informed Canada, yourself about the way to do that?

CARNEY: Well, I think that the reaction of Iran and some of its partners or allies has revealed that the nefarious nature of much of its nuclear program. I mean, there was denial. There was a fiction that they perpetrated that this was for only peaceful means or power.

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: So, you don't believe the intelligence that they had not made a decision to go for a bomb?

CARNEY: Well, they were enriching uranium to a degree. They were hiding the facilities or trying to hide the facilities over many, many years on a path that created -- that was not necessary, that was entirely not necessary for civilian use of nuclear technology.

So, I think the combination of that, the combination of their belligerence, the combination of their state sponsor of terrorism throughout the region, all of that points in one direction.

AMANPOUR: And how seriously then do you take their desire to go to negotiations to resolve this peacefully? Because that's what they said they thought they were doing when Israel started.

CARNEY: Well, they -- again, we weren't party to the negotiations, but they hadn't -- Iran had not proceeded with the final phase of those negotiations prior to this action. We were not -- we didn't know the Israeli action was going to happen, to be absolutely clear.

How likely is it? I mean, this speculative. But the facts on the ground have changed. The risk calculation for the Iranian regime has to have changed. The clarity about what their intentions were on -- with respect to their nuclear program, I think, has changed. I'm not surprised by that, but it has changed.

All of that should point to a resumption of negotiations to denuclearize Iraq.

AMANPOUR: Do you think there is any way that there can be the kind of peace that people are talking about now in the Middle East if there isn't a resolution, first to the Gaza catastrophe and second, in general, to the Israel-Palestinian crisis, trying to get a state for the Palestinians that lives in harmony, peace, and security for all, and freedom?

How much do you think you are all committed to that? And what will you do? What strikes you as the most important thing to do next?

CARNEY: Well, I think when you have -- first your -- the core question. Can there be a lasting peace in the Middle East without peace in Gaza? That takes into account Gaza and West Bank, and effectively working on a path to a Palestinian State.

You use several adjectives. I would agree with all of those and living side by side in security with Israel, you know, a Zionist, if you will, Palestinian State that recognizes the right of Israel to exist. Not just to exist, but to prosper and not live in fear. Now, we can't have peace unless we move towards that.

Second point, developments. As we sit today in the potential trajectory with respect to Iran, does create another window for that.

At the G7, we all agreed, President Trump included, that resolution of the crisis with Iran should be accompanied by a broader reduction of hostilities in the region, including, these are exact words, including a ceasefire in Gaza.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Prime Minister the hostages have not been released except through a ceasefire and negotiations. The last batches of hostages who were released were under those circumstances.

In Israel itself, like the former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, former defense minister Moshe Ya'alon, former, you know, security and intelligence and defense and security establishment are beginning and saying loudly that Israel needs to stop this trajectory in Gaza because it's leading to war crimes and almost that war crimes are being committed.

You have said that you strongly oppose the expansion of the operations in Gaza. The level of human suffering is intolerable. Do you believe, like many in the International Community, that the siege preventing food, medicine, water, and all the rest of it should be prosecuted as war crimes? And I know your police are -- Royal Mounted Police are investigating some aspects of that. [11:09:45]

CARNEY: Well, the first -- where we're focused is using this opportunity, the extent to which we have influence using this opportunity, if I can term it that way, and I think it is an opportunity, to establish -- reestablish a ceasefire in Gaza, reestablish the full resumption of humanitarian aid.

We're also focused on stopping the violence in the West Bank and the encroachments in the West Bank, which is why we took action alongside a number of other countries against some cabinet ministers sanctioned against --

AMANPOUR: Yes, the extreme right.

CARNEY: Yes. Who are -- have been actively fomenting and perpetrating that. So, focus on that immediate aspect in order to start to build back.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Trump left the NATO summit doing a rhetorical about turn, praising his allies and saying America would always have their back and they are not ripping off the United States.

Coming up later on the show, more of my exclusive conversation with the Canadian PM about much needed support for Ukraine.

[11:10:55]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

And now for more of my exclusive conversation with Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney at this week's NATO summit.

I spoke to him just before Trump arrived. I asked about his relationship with the American president and whether Ukraine can still count on U.S. support to fend off Russian aggression.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: This exclusive conversation happened before the U.S. President announced on Truth Social yesterday that he was pulling out of trade talks with Canada.

Let's move on to Canada's desire, because you've said a lot Canada will lead, you want to help lead form new coalitions. You've said, in fact, if the United States no longer wants to lead, Canada will. Try to build a coalition of like-minded nations with like-minded values, et cetera, and who believe in international cooperation.

What does that look like? And is that something that will trigger President Trump into more anger? He's already got these tariffs and he's already said, if you guys essentially try to gang up on me, you'll have to pay for it even more dearly.

CARNEY: If the U.S. is pulling back from multilateralism as it is with respect to trade, these are -- effectively U.S. trade policy is now bilateral. If the U.S. is pulling back, there are others of us who do believe in multilateralism.

So, as you know, literally, I'm coming here -- in the last 12 hours ago I was in Brussels agreeing at the candidate -- at E.U. summit agreeing a very comprehensive partnership and a process to have an ever-closer economic defense and security partnership between Canada and the E.U.

That is an example of two jurisdictions, in the case of the E.U., that believe in multilateralism, believe in the rule of law, believe in fair and open trade, believe in defense cooperation.

So, that's an example of leadership, if you will, that's positive. It's not a -- it's a reaction, if you will, to what's happening in the United States. But it's not a reaction against the United States. It's for something not against.

AMANPOUR: But President Trump tends to be, A, transactional, and B, very personal. And sometimes he thinks -- or maybe you know, differently.

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: I don't think --

AMANPOUR: They say that you're the Trump whisperer of the leaders.

CARNEY: I'm not sure about that.

AMANPOUR: And that you're on texting, you know, relations with him and you're constantly talking. So, is he still saying he wants to annex Canada?

CARNEY: He's not. He's not. He admires Canada, I think it's fair to say. And maybe for a period of time coveted Canada, but --

AMANPOUR: You've put that to bed.

CARNEY: Well, look, we're two sovereign nations who are discussing the future of our trade relationships, our defense partnership, which has been very strong in the past. How is that going to evolve?

But again, I would say it this way, the president is focused on a series of bilateral -- of changing bilateral relations. We're at NATO. He's been focused on making sure that all members, Canada included, of NATO pay their fair share or carry their weight.

We -- I think we are now doing that. We've made major investments in defense in recent months. We're now at the native (ph) 2 percent. We're committed to accelerating that. We've got this new defense partnership with Europe as another example.

That's -- other countries stepping up. I don't see that that is at all in -- I think that's positive.

AMANPOUR: So how realistic is it in a time when you already have economic difficulties, so does some, you know, Europe and others to actually Europe 2 percent, but now they want 3.5 percent and eventually 5 percent? Isn't that just going to cripple your budgets?

CARNEY: It's -- well, it's important. These are important questions and it's important to be clear what we are potentially and I think likely to all agree tomorrow, which is -- and let's take the 5 percent of GDP figure, which is a big --

AMANPOUR: Huge chunk.

CARNEY: -- big number.

AMANPOUR: How much is it actually for you?

CARNEY: 5 percent of our GDP would be about $150 billion.

AMANPOUR: I mean, that's a lot.

CARNEY: It's a lot of number.

AMANPOUR: Per year?

CARNEY: Per year.

AMANPOUR: That's a lot.

CARNEY: Of course. It's -- it is a lot.

[11:19:48]

AMANPOUR: So, it means that that's stuff that you can't give to your own citizens.

CARNEY: Well, ok, but here's --

AMANPOUR: Social --

(CROSSTALK)

CARNEY: Let's start to break it down.

AMANPOUR: Yes, but you know.

CARNEY: So, part of it, what -- a little more -- a little less than a third of that overall number is spending on things that, quite frankly, we're already doing to build the resilience of our economy.

So, it can be domestic resilience, it can be defending in areas that support defense, but also, support other things. So, I'll give an example, critical minerals. It is obvious, I think, to everyone now the risk that's run being fully dependent on China for critical minerals, including rare earth, magnets, and others, not just for defense industry, but for the auto industry and others. Canada has one of the biggest and most varied deposits of critical

minerals.

AMANPOUR: Which Trump was coveting.

CARNEY: We are going to develop those, we're going to develop those in Canadian interests. We're going to develop the, some of them in partnership with the European Union itself and European Union member states, with the U.K., other partners. Some of the spending for that counts towards that 5 percent.

So, that's something that benefits the Canadian economy, but is also part of our NATO, our new NATO responsibilities. So, I'm not trying to downplay it.

I think the other thing I would say is where we sit today collectively, we, NATO countries are likely to agree to the other component of that, that 2 percent going to the 3.5 percent in 10 years.

But the nature of warfare is changing very rapidly. We just look at what's happening in Ukraine.

So we're going to look at what's required. We're going to do a review in four or five years-time, what's actually required.

AMANPOUR: Talking about Ukraine, which is the war in Europe and the existential war, frankly, as Europeans see it.

CARNEY: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And obviously, as Ukraine sees it. You have a massive Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. And the world was incredibly on Ukraine's side for so long. It's almost like now it's an afterthought.

But if the United States walks away, don't you think Russia will win?

CARNEY: No. The short answer is no.

AMANPOUR: Really.

CARNEY: I don't think --

AMANPOUR: Can you make up for the weapons that --

CARNEY: Well, we can't fully make up, but we can -- first off, I don't think the U.S. is going to, quote, "walk away".

AMANPOUR: Are you going to try to persuade Trump to keep supporting Ukraine militarily?

CARNEY: Yes, yes. Absolutely. Because it -- look, it is -- it's not -- yes, we have a diaspora and it's -- of course, that's important and there's personal ties.

But this about rule of law, it's about territorial integrity. It's about support for democracy. And it has much, it does have those wider implications. It's also it has real security implications for much of Europe.

We are at NATO. We have -- under Article 5, we have responsibilities to each other. We take those responsibilities seriously. That's why we're here.

And so, yes, we'll make a very strong case to the president.

AMANPOUR: On that note, Prime Minister Carney, thank you for joining us.

CARNEY: Thanks for having me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Trump claims Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated. So will the program be able to continue? I'll discuss with my next guest when we come back.

[11:23:08]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back. Now there's been a real war of words, or rather intel, this week, a leaked U.S. report said those strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy them, likely only set back the program by months.

Trump responded with fury, saying that it was only a preliminary report. The CIA and Israeli intelligence say they had been taken out of commission, and Iran agrees their facilities have been, quote, "badly damaged".

So what does the future hold for the negotiations or a new race by Iran to actually become a nuclear power?

My next guest, Gary Samore, was the White House coordinator for arms control under President Obama. And I asked him whether Iran's nuclear program has a future and about the program's unusual origin story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Gary Samore, welcome to the program.

You are a serious arms control expert. You worked for the Obama administration, and we want to know your insight into all of this.

The whole debate over how much of a facility was destroyed. Clearly, potentially, I think, anyway, from what I've spoken to experts, it sort of obliterates the actual real problem and the real question, which we do not know.

Were they able to preserve and rescue and remove a certain number of centrifuges, if not all? And crucially, were they able to remove a certain amount or all of the 400 or so kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the 60 percent that is so troublesome to the rest of the world?

And if so, could they decide to pursue a program and maybe even a weapon in secret? What do you think?

SAMORE: Well, certainly they could try. I mean, Iran has the technical expertise. They have bits and pieces of the centrifuge program left over.

[11:29:47]

SAMORE: And most importantly, as you said, they have a pretty large stockpile of enriched uranium. About 5,000 kilograms of low enriched uranium and about 400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium, which could be enriched further to 90 percent. That was the level Iran planned to use in their nuclear weapon.

Iran could even try to make crude and bulky nuclear weapons from the 60 percent enriched uranium. It couldn't be delivered by a missile or a military aircraft, but it might be delivered by a boat or a commercial airliner.

So, all of that is possible.

I think the question is what Iran's will is and what their capacity or appetite for risk is? Certainly, the war has increased Iran's rationale for having nuclear weapons as a way to defend themselves and deter future attacks from the U.S. and Israel.

But the war has also illustrated that Israel, and, even more important, the U.S. is prepared to use military force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

So, Iran has to calculate what is the danger that an effort to resume a nuclear weapons program or a program to produce nuclear weapons could result in an additional conflict. And we just don't know the answer to that now.

And we'll see whether or not Iran reaffirms its commitment to the NPT, which would require them to allow IAEA inspectors to verify and monitor the location of this enriched uranium.

Some of it could be buried in tunnels at Isfahan. So, it might take months to dig it out. Some of it could have been moved before the U.S. strike. So, it's really a little unclear at this point exactly what the status of that enriched uranium is.

AMANPOUR: Ok. Well, let me ask you, because you yourself wrote that Iran is unlikely to formally give up its right to enrichment.

Today, the Supreme Leader has now come out and he has said it's a joke that Iran would surrender enrichment. You just mentioned an option, and we wait to see if they withdraw from the NPT, but they have actually, in parliament anyway and with one other level, it's called the -- you know, one of the expert levels that they have in their system, have decided that they will suspend or end cooperation with the IAEA.

How bad is that? What does that signal, the IAEA move? And it has not yet been approved by Khamenei, that move.

SAMORE: I think if Iran withdraws from the NPT and stop cooperating with the IAEA, which would mean that we don't really know for sure where that enriched uranium is, I think it's quite likely that the war would resume.

Just as if Iran tries to build a secret enrichment plant and it's discovered, I think it's very likely that the war would resume.

So again, Iran has to calculate, on one hand, its enhanced desire to have nuclear weapons for protection versus, on the other hand, the risk that pursuing nuclear weapons will lead to a resumption of a conflict.

I agree that they won't give up the right to enrichment. That's something too important to the regime.

AMANPOUR: I want to go back to a little bit of the history of the Iranian nuclear program. As you know, in 1957, the U.S. and Iran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement, it was part of President Eisenhower's Atom for Peace program. That also led to the IAEA.

The U.S. shipped Iran a nuclear reactor in the late 60s. The Iran signed the NPT around the same time. But Robert Einhorn, a former arms control official who you know, will we gave Iran its starter kit. "We weren't terribly concerned about nuclear proliferation in those days, so we were pretty promiscuous about transferring nuclear technology. We got other countries started in the nuclear business."

So, let's just go back to that. Obviously, with the best intentions, they didn't expect there to be, you know, a rush towards weaponization. Was that naive or did something go wrong?

SAMORE: Well, what's interesting is that the U.S. position toward Iran's nuclear program has actually been very consistent, going back to the Nixon administration. We supported Iran acquiring nuclear technology for research and for nuclear power, for energy generation, but we opposed the Shah of Iran acquiring what's called fuel cycle, enrichment and reprocessing, which are technologies that have both civilian and military applications.

And that policy has actually continued after the -- after the revolution. President Clinton and President Yeltsin reached an agreement that the U.S. would not try to block the Bushehr nuclear power reactor.

[11:34:50]

SAMORE: And at the same time, Russia agreed to cancel plans to build an enrichment plant inside Iran. And I think when the Russians backed out of that contract with Iran, the Iranians decided to build their own enrichment facility, ostensibly to produce fuel for nuclear power. That was the start of the Natanz enrichment plant, which was then

subsequently made public in 2002. And which, of course, was recently attacked in this war.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you this because, look, you know, John Kerry and all the others who negotiated the JCPOA, they believe that whatever happens, this has to be a diplomatic process. But then Trump pulled out of the JCPOA.

We're here because of that, right, of pulling out and the Iran's, you know, rush to enrich to 60 percent.

SAMORE: Yes, I think we're here because of two miscalculations. The first was Trump's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in 2018.

And then Iran refusing to restore the agreement, led to the situation where Iran was very rapidly accumulating 60 percent enriched uranium, which, as we talked about, poses a nuclear weapons threat. And I think that's what triggered the conflict.

Let's watch and see whether diplomacy can now pick off where the fighting ended. I think that's the critical question to watch.

AMANPOUR: Thank you so much, Gary.

SAMORE: Thank you, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Up next, inside America as political chaos unfolds, worried comparisons between Trump's intolerance for protests and dissent and Mao's cultural revolution.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAUL YEUNG, FORMER RED GUARD: I don't think America would be that fool to accept another Mao.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[11:36:42]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

From the start of Trump 2.0, both Russia and China have seen a huge opportunity in the chaos being sown. China wants to be the next world superpower and fill the leadership vacuum it sees left by America First.

Political turmoil continues to unfold inside the United States, from the assassination of lawmakers to Trump's military crackdown in L.A. and his intolerance for protest and dissent. And DOGE, minus Elon Musk, is still taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy. Now, for some Chinese who escaped Mao's rule, that chainsaw policy is

a worrying reminder of the chaos and violence unleashed by his disastrously damaging cultural revolution.

Here's CNN's Kristie Lu Stout.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KRISTIE LU STOUT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The cultural revolution unleashed by Chairman Mao Zedong ripped China apart.

It was a decade of torture, abuse and chaos. The memory from half a century ago still haunts many. Today, in articles and social media posts, scholars and commentators are drawing comparisons between Mao and U.S. President Donald Trump.

YEUNG: Trump got to be careful, too. He has some tendency to enjoy the absolute power.

STOUT: Saul Yeung was once one of Chairman Mao's Red Guard. He later fled to the U.S. and embraced American democracy.

Now a successful businessman in Silicon Valley, he refuses to believe that Maoism could take root in America.

YEUNG: I don't think the America would be that fool to accept another Mao. No way. No.

STOUT: To be clear, there is a fundamental difference between Mao, a dictator of a one-party state, and Trump an elected president flexing his executive power. But to many observers, the parallels are strong.

Mao started his revolution by organizing farmers and blue-collar workers. Trump rallied the votes of America's working class. Mao had a deep contempt for intellectual elites and bureaucratic institutions, and mobilized Red Guards to purge intellectuals, senior officials and scientists.

Trump has attacked universities, law firms and the press, and upended the federal bureaucracy, dismantling agencies and slashing civil service jobs.

As the republic's founding father, Mao was regarded the Red Sun of China. A Chinese netizen writes on a U.S. Embassy WeChat post. "The American people also have their own sun."

Others point out signs of a Mao-like personality cult in Washington, like when Brendan Carr, chair of the U.S. Federal Communications commission, wore on his chest a gold pin in the shape of Trump's profile, a pin that to many brings to mind the Mao badges worn as a public display of loyalty.

But some Chinese scholars believe the comparison is fundamentally misleading.

JANE HAYWARD, LAU CHINA INSTITUTE KING'S COLLEGE LONDON: Mao had a genuine goal to try to transform and restructure society, to make it egalitarian.

Trump's objective is to make capitalism more exclusive, which benefits a far more smaller group of people. And that is absolutely the opposite of what Mao was trying to do.

[11:44:46]

STOUT: Back in his home at Silicon Valley. Saul Yeung is confident Americans will avoid another cultural revolution.

YEUNG: I have confidence in American political culture. We are different. America is different.

STOUT: For this American survivor of Chinas tumultuous past, the nightmare is over.

Kristie Lu Stout, CNN -- Hong Kong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Up next, from the archive, my rare visit to Iran's Isfahan nuclear facility. It's one of the prime targets of the Israeli and U.S. attacks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The Iranian government is saying that this is a transparency visit designed to show the world what it claims to be Its peaceful nuclear program.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[11:45:30]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

Among the three main targets of U.S. And Israeli strikes on Iran, the one in Isfahan is the largest, or it was. It's essentially where Iran's nuclear process began converting enriched uranium gas into the solid materials, and ultimately, if such a decision is made, into a metal that could be used in a nuclear warhead or bomb.

In 2007, I had the rare opportunity to visit that conversion site at Isfahan. It was part of Iran's efforts even back then to appear transparent and tried to show the world that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Here's a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: The Iranian government has invited hundreds of journalists, as well as six ambassadors from the so-called non-aligned movement. They are ambassadors from Malaysia, Egypt, Sudan, Bolivia, Cuba, Slovenia -- countries which are not in the Security Council and there are no Western countries represented here.

Nonetheless, the Iranian government is saying that this is a transparency visit designed to show the world what it claims to be its peaceful nuclear program.

ALI ASGHAR SOLTANIEH, IRANIAN ENVOY, IAEA: As you notice, the whole system is closed system. It means the input is calculated by the IAEA. Every gram of yellowcake inside when they (INAUDIBLE) will input is measured. And outside it could be measured. Therefore, they can have accountancy very easily.

They agreed to put two additional cameras so that they are sure that these capsules are not moved during this process, when the inspectors are not here. 250 tons of UF6 have been produced here, and everything is under the IAEA.

This uranium conversion facility at Isfahan is not the current showpiece in Iran's nuclear program. That's at Natanz, about an hour away from here, where Iran has already conducted some experimental uranium enrichment.

The Iranian officials have been saying that sometime in the next ten days, while they're celebrating the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, they may have a major new announcement on their nuclear program.

Some have speculated that they may announce a 3,000-centrifuge cascade, which could dramatically increase their ability to enrich uranium, move the experimental enrichment of uranium up to a more industrial scale.

Iran, however, says that it has not started that yet. It also insists that IAEA surveillance cameras remain at Natanz.

Christiane Amanpour, CNN at the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And Natanz, was, of course, one of the other main areas that was struck. And, of course, there was Fordow as well.

And the Trump administration says that it will still take some time to get a final and full, what they call BDA -- battle damage assessment.

Now, when we come back, remembering a wonderful war reporter, a colleague and a friend.

[11:53:09]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: And finally, this week, we say farewell to a friend, a colleague, a fellow war correspondent, and a fighter to the very end.

Reporter Rod Nordland died on Monday at the age of 75 after a six-year battle with an aggressive form of brain cancer.

From Newsweek to "The New York Times", from Bosnia to Afghanistan, he bore witness to some of the worst and the best of humanity, including the plight of a young Afghan couple whose courtship and escape from the country he chronicled in his book "The Lovers".

Last year I spoke to Rod about his diagnosis with glioblastoma, which he wrote about in his final book, "Waiting for the monsoon".

And in this memoir, he reflects on how war reporting truly defined his life, so much so that he associated each of his children -- Loreen, Johanna, and jake with different conflicts that he covered in the 90s and 2000.

And in our last conversation, he told me how the disease had also brought with it some unexpected joy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: You have talked about you're living your second life, and you seem to have an incredibly optimistic view of what happened to you and really what it gave you where most people would probably be thinking, oh, my God, this is the worst thing possible. You have had a different engagement with your disease.

ROD NORDLAND, JOURNALIST: Yes. I mean, I also, from time to time thought, oh, my God, this is horrible. But I managed to keep my spirits up, partly thanks to the devotion of my partner and to many great friends who have been there for me.

You know, when you when you have a disease like this or become disabled, a lot of people just ghost you.

[11:59:46]

NORDLAND: They don't -- they can't face it. They don't want to have to face the reality of it. And that can be very hurtful.

But I was fortunate to have a large group of very close friends and a very devoted partner who have always been there for me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And his partner, Leila tells us, "Rod's courage in the field was reflected in his courage throughout his illness."

That's all we have time for this week. Don't forget you can find all our shows online as podcasts at CNN.com/audio and on all other major platforms.

I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Thank you for watching and I'll see you again next week.