Return to Transcripts main page

The Amanpour Hour

Interview With B'Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak; Interview With Physicians for Human Rights Israel Executive Director Guy Shalev; Interview With Former Director Of The National Institutes Of Health Dr. Francis Collins; One Of Ukraine's Youngest Victims; Interview With Former Special Adviser To Shinzo Abe Tomohiko Taniguchi; Interview With National Security Council Former Director For Indo-Pacific Strategy Mira Rapp-Hooper; 35 Years Since Saddam Hussein Invaded Kuwait; "Bend It Like Beckham". Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired August 02, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[10:59:47]

(CROSSTALKING)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". You can catch every week night at 10:00 p.m. with our "NEWSNIGHT" roundtable and any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram and TikTok.

In the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone. And welcome to THE AMANPOUR HOUR. Here's where we're headed this week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: As suffering and starvation continue in Gaza, Israeli critics are getting louder, especially inside the country. The leaders of two Israeli human rights organizations tell me why they believe their government is committing genocide in Gaza.

GUY SHALEV, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ISRAEL: Attack after attack, hospital after hospital, blocking of water, blocking of food, destruction of infrastructure that's just needed for people to survive. That's when we get to the conclusion that a genocide is being committed unfortunately.

Then --

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: Well, there are immediate consequences for people who are depending on medical research to potentially come up with an answer.

AMANPOUR: Former National Institutes of health chief Francis Collins on the chilling impact of science and research cuts to your health care.

Also ahead.

As Trump ramps up pressure on Putin's grinding war, A special report on one of Ukraine's youngest victims.

Plus, the far-right win big at polls in Japan. How tourism could be a cause and what the U.S. stands to lose. We hear from experts in Tokyo and Washington.

And from my archive --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two. Three.

AMANPOUR: 35 years ago today, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, CNN got its global launch pad, and I got my start covering the first Gulf War and meeting America's military machine.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

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

President Trump's special Middle East envoy was dispatched to Israel this week and also visited the deadly, dangerous U.S. aid delivery hubs in Gaza as pressure mounts with both Britain and Canada now adding to the nations who say they'll recognize a Palestinian state unless Israel takes action towards a ceasefire in Gaza and ending starvation, killing, displacement of civilians all happening before our very eyes.

The rising tide of criticism hit a peak with President Trump this week saying starvation there is happening, even as Benjamin Netanyahu denies it.

In an unprecedented move, two leading Israeli human rights organizations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say their own government is committing genocide in Gaza. The Israeli government and its allies have issued furious denials.

I spoke to B'Tselem's executive director Yuli Novak and Guy Shalev, the CEO of Physicians for Human Rights in Israel. They joined me from Tel Aviv.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, Yuli Novak, first, because B'Tselem has been a leading human rights organization for decades in your country. Since you actually issued this report, what has the response been inside Israel and amongst the Jewish population worldwide?

YULI NOVAK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, B'TSELEM: I would say that 99 percent of Israelis didn't hear about our report because part of what the Israeli media is doing is completely deny Israeli public from knowing what's going on, first of all.

And then, there is the overall sentiment and something that became almost normal, the incitement for genocide.

So, I think, again, it is devastating as an Israeli, but it's a really good example for how disconnected people that conduct genocide can be from what they actually do.

AMANPOUR: I want to also ask Guy Shalev from Physicians for Human Rights, the Israeli chapter. Israel is a nation that was born out of genocide, out of the Holocaust. This is an unprecedented internal Israeli accusation against the government of committing similar crimes now in Gaza.

Again, what led you, at this time, to decide that it was right to use this legal term in terms of what's going on right now? What was the criteria for you?

SHALEV: We are doing it with a heavy heart because of our history, my personal family history and my people's history. It's not an easy moment to be, to accuse my own society, my own communities in committing genocide.

And for us, we are sticking to the international law, the definition according to the Genocide Convention that Israeli signed on, and we are looking at the cumulative information that we are gathering from the ground for almost two years.

[11:04:53]

SHALEV: We've been working every day in emergency mode for the past almost two years to collect the data, to speak with our colleagues in the Gaza healthcare system. And we are looking at the attack -- the systematic attack on Gaza's healthcare system and all life-sustaining systems.

And what -- when we look at that together, attack after attack, hospital after hospital, blocking of water, blocking of food, destruction of infrastructure that's just needed for people to survive -- that's when we get to the conclusion that a genocide is being committed, unfortunately.

AMANPOUR: So, you talk about the U.N. Convention. And indeed, the crime of genocide was defined in 1948 by the United Nations as quote, "The intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such."

And Yuli, based on B'Tselem's examination you reached the, quote, "Unequivocal conclusion that Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip."

So, as you know, as well as I do, that the issue would be intent. Obviously, Israel denies any intent to do that. And clearly, consistently denies that it is targeting deliberately civilians and that it is going after Hamas.

So you must have built a case around intent, not just what you are observing. So, is that correct? Am I correct?

NOVAK: This cannot be only a theoretical discussion. So, let's talk about intent as we see it, as people who have eyes and ears and mind to think. When the top leadership of Israel stands in the first day -- days of this attack, and I'm talking about the prime minister, the minister of defense, even the president himself, and telling us what's the goal of this attack. They're telling us, destroy Amalek, that mean, destroy everybody. They're telling us, "We are fighting human animals and will treat them as such," and I quote.

I -- they say it's an entire nation there that is responsible for the crimes of Hamas on October 7th.

So, when you hear that and then you look on the results and the outcomes -- again, genocide is about attacking people who are being attacked only because they are part of a group, not because what they did personally, not because what they think or who they are.

And the second thing, that they have no way to protect themself.

AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you both whether you are prepared to also say that Hamas showed genocidal intent and committed a genocide, if they could have done more what they did by targeting an ethnical, religious, national group on October 7th?

SHALEV: I think, first of all, analyzing what Hamas has done in October 7th is something that is very important. Also, looking at the crimes done by Hamas, war crimes, crimes against humanity during this attack is something that is very important to do.

But it's always important to remember that according to international law, according to international humanitarian law, there is no connection between what one party does to what the other party does.

And whatever crimes Hamas have done, and they have done that -- the crimes, very horrible crimes in October 7th, it doesn't excuse or it doesn't justify any crimes done afterwards by Israel in their attack.

But Article 2C of the convention deals with the systematic infrastructure attack on a people in order to destroy that people. And this is the article that we are focusing in our report, on the attack on healthcare and health-sustaining infrastructure.

And when you look at the attack and the attack on healthcare, you see pattern of conduct, you see an attack after attack.

What happens to the patients? What happened to the staff members? These are not coincidental. This is a policy.

I want to ask you, Yuli. Some critics have said that using this particular legal term, which is a step above the general accusation of war crimes, which even some Israelis, such as your former prime minister, Ehud Olmert, former defense secretary or defense minister, Moshe Yaalon and others, use the word "war crimes", but they haven't gone to the word "genocide".

But I want to ask you, what do you think the result will be? Will Israel take your -- will the government take your report and say, we're going to do something about this or will they go into a greater defensive crouch and, I don't know, fight back harder? What do you think? I guess, what's your ultimate goal? NOVAK: So, our ultimate goal is to save life and to protect human rights. And no, I don't think the Israeli government showed us any sign that they are about to do it. They don't care about what we say, about what you say, about what the international media say. They've proven us that.

[11:09:51]

NOVAK: They -- actually, they're becoming more and more delusional. You just asked Guy about the medical system.

They're also claiming that there is no starvation in Gaza, right? So, I wouldn't count on them not to stop it by themselves, not to understand the depths of this disaster that they are bringing upon this land, not only because dozens of thousands of people are getting -- got killed and still -- and starved and getting killed, but because what they're doing is taking out the most basic sense and rules and norms of humanity out of this space.

AMANPOUR: Well, Yuli Novak, executive director of B'Tselem, and Guy Shalev, CEO of Physicians for Human Rights in Israel, thank you both very much for joining us on this important report.

NOVAK: Thank you.

SHALEV: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: My entire interview with Yuli Novak and Guy Shalev is online at amanpour.com.

Coming up later on the show, science under siege in America as the Trump administration guts agencies, cuts research and targets scientists. I speak to the former head of the NIH, Francis Collins.

Also ahead -- America first or Japan first. We look at the populist wave hitting that Pacific nation.

[11:11:05]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

There's fear in America for the future of immigrants, for the press, for democratic institutions, and for medicine and science.

In his second term, President Donald Trump has dismantled the foundations of scientific research at universities across America, slashing funding, gutting agencies and targeting scientists themselves.

Just this week, the FDA's top vaccine and gene therapy official resigned after relentless attacks from the right wing. My next guest, Dr. Francis Collins, who led the U.S. National

Institutes of Health, the NIH, under three presidents, is here to warn that the very future of American science and health are in jeopardy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Dr. Collins, welcome to the program.

DR. COLLINS: Thank you, Christiane. It's nice to be with you and talk about something that I think is really important.

AMANPOUR: I mean, so important, which is why we want you on the program to explain. So, you had, in any event, ended your term as head of the NIH. You stepped down, I think in '21, but you were leading another lab.

And in the full, you know, daylight of the cuts and the threats by President Trump, you decided that you needed to leave, right? You needed to resign or leave the NIH. Just tell me what went in your thinking and why did you do that?

DR. COLLINS: It became untenable to continue to be there. All kinds of restrictions were placed on the research we were trying to do. You weren't allowed to order supplies. You weren't allowed to start any new projects, only old things.

Staff were being fired with no justification whatsoever. And we were also muzzled and told you're not allowed to speak even at a scientific meeting in any way because of concern that you might say something critical.

I felt distinctly unwelcomed. And it seemed as if I was going to have any useful role to play here, it would have to be outside of NIH.

AMANPOUR: Just a personal question. It must have been devastating for you as such a long-time linchpin of the NIH and for your staff who you went to tell. What was that last meeting like?

DR. COLLINS: Yes. There was a lot of heartbreak. And there continues to be, as we see this amazing engine for discovery that's been built over decades and has been the envy of the world.

And now, it's being devastated by decisions made by individuals who seem not particularly interested in the consequences. It's heartless. It's careless, and it's deeply damaging to something that I think all Americans would not want to see happening.

AMANPOUR: So, now, tell me if you can, what exact exactly is the consequence of this? What in terms of your research and the effect on people's health in the U.S. and around the world?

DR. COLLINS: Well, there are immediate consequences for people who are depending on medical research to potentially come up with an answer to the circumstances they were facing.

I could tell you about Natalie Phelps, somebody who's in her 30s afflicted with stage four colorectal cancer who was on a pathway towards a clinical trial of immunotherapy at NIH, which she and many other people refer to as the National Institutes of Hope, because that's what they need right now.

And because of staff cuts that got slowed down. By the time maybe she could have enrolled in it, she already had a metastasis to the brain and was no longer eligible. So, real consequences there.

I could tell you about young kids who have rare diseases who are counting on advances, which are happening right now at remarkable pace with things like CRISPR and gene editing who basically their parents are wondering, is there going to be anything happening now because they have been essentially slowed to a crawl by the cuts that have been made in that kind of research as well.

And people are worried about Alzheimer's disease, as we all must, as we get older. Likewise, those grants also have been seriously slowed because of the attacks on universities where much of this research is done.

[11:19:49]

AMANPOUR: And you know, you've mentioned your Hippocratic Oath like all doctors, do no harm, save lives and that's what your primary focus was during the COVID pandemic. But you've also said publicly and you've written a new book, it's right there behind you, "Road to Wisdom".

You've said that you regret perhaps some of the communication that came from the podiums during COVID. That there was such certainty as opposed to admitting that actually this is an evolving situation.

Tell me about what you think you guys could have done better with 20/20 hindsight.

DR. COLLINS: Yes, with hindsight, I think in that crisis when the information about the COVID virus was very incomplete, we did the best we could.

I just wish every time that somebody like me had been in front of a camera, we would've said at the outset, this is an evolving situation. This is the best we can do right now, but it might have to be revised. And then, people wouldn't be so surprised when it did get changed later on.

I think we lost some of the confidence of the public because of those changes that were made. And we maybe could have avoided that if we'd been more clear about the uncertainty part.

But Christiane, let me say, maybe 20 percent of the public loss of trust during COVID could be traced to some of those missteps that were made by the public communication efforts.

80 percent of it was done by all of the misinformation and disinformation that was being spread wildly across the Internet, sometimes by politicians. I've heard no apologies for that. AMANPOUR: Especially in the wake of the new Secretary of Health and Human Services and his, you know, essential dissing and dismantling of a vaccine program in the U.S. and around the world.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a known vaccine skeptic. And no matter what he told his confirmation hearings, he's done things that he said he wouldn't do. He sidelined the expert panel at the CDC. He's pulled U.S. funding or he says he will out of the Gavi program, which is vaccines for internationals and people -- you know, the poorest of the poor.

What is this going to do, this kind of ideology and non-scientific approach going to do to America and actually to the rest of the world?

DR. COLLINS: Well, when you mix politics and science, you just get politics, and that, I'm afraid, is the circumstance we're seeing right now in the United States.

And certainly, when it comes to vaccines, which have saved tens of millions of lives, hundreds of millions of lives globally over time. To have this put into a circumstance of casting so much doubt about the efficacy is truly heartbreaking and dangerous.

Look what's happening right now in our country with measles. We have the highest level of cases of measles in 33 years because of the reduction in vaccine receptivity in certain communities.

And that is not being helped by a government that seems to suggest that maybe these vaccines are not safe after all.

AMANPOUR: Thank you so much, Dr. Francis Collins.

DR. COLLINS: Thank you, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Coming up next -- as Russia intensifies its relentless onslaught on Ukraine, we hear from a mother of one of the war's youngest victims. That's after a break.

[11:22:58]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

This week, Russia continued relentlessly pummeling and pounding Ukraine with missiles and drones. Putin so far ignoring President Trump's cajoling or his increased anger.

But the disruption in weapons supplies from the United States means besieged towns on Ukraine's eastern front are struggling to cope, and Russia continues to kill and maim civilians there, as well as in the capital and other cities.

But sometimes the scale of the losses can obscure the individual pain. And that's the focus of this report by correspondent Nick Paton Walsh. The heartbreaking story of one little boy.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: When wars kill for years, names bleed into lists without faces, but each loss still burns a black hole in the worlds they left behind.

Tymur was age 10 and for now, the latest child to die in Ukraine.

He was visiting his grandmother in Kramatorsk -- he really wanted to see her -- when a 250-kilogram Russian bomb hit her top-floor home.

It was 4:40 a.m. on July the 22nd, and Tymur slept alone in the spare room.

Toys flipped up on the roof. His mother, Nastia, had left them together that night and was due to take Tymur home to Kyiv the next morning.

ANASTASIYA CHAICHENKO, MOTHER OF TYMUR (graphics): He said he wanted to stay. I said, "No, son, we're going. We're definitely going." Then, at that very moment, I wasn't at home, unfortunately.

I don't know why or how, what forces took me away from it. But I should have been with him. And I blame myself very much for that.

WALSH: Tymur grew up in war, born in 2015, when Vladimir Putin was also annexing towns while talking peace.

[11:29:53]

WALSH: His father Yevgeny, playing with him here, was killed fighting the Russians near Lyman 26 months ago.

When Nastia's sister rang at 5:00 a.m., she sensed it meant more loss and at first, hung up. Didn't want to take the call.

CHAICHENKO: She said, "They took mom away. And they're searching for Tymur under the rubble." From that moment on, I felt like I was in a dream.

WALSH: At the scene, rescuers had pulled Tymur out. And here -- their desperate efforts to resuscitate him.

CHAICHENKO: It was like a new breath of hope when one of the soldiers came out and said that he had a pulse and they were resuscitating him. And for those 40 minutes while they were pumping him, I prayed to God to give him life. But the miracle didn't happen. And I couldn't go up there. I went straight to my mom at the hospital.

WALSH: Tymur was the only one to die that night and is buried on the edge of Kramatorsk, where the graves are ready for more. And the skyline, often loud.

Nastia remembers their last moment together. CHAICHENKO: You know, it was such a very warm last moment with him. We went crazy. I showed him how I used to give him massages when he was a baby. We laughed. And that was it.

TYMUR GRIGORENKO, KILLED BY RUSSIAN STRIKE: I wish you a beautiful love. I wish you a happy family.

CHAICHENKO: He loved all the animals very much and kids. At home in Kyiv, he has two pet rats waiting for him. He loved them madly.

He constantly called me and asked, "Mom, did you clear their cage? Did you feed them? Do they have water?" Very caring, very bright boy. Very --

WALSH: As towns fall and deadlines pass, remember Tymur Grigorenko, aged ten, who knew only war; whose teacher said he spoke up when girls were picked on; who had two pet rats; and who really wanted to stay with his grandmother on the night a Russian airstrike killed only him as he slept.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN -- Kramatorsk, Ukraine.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: It is just so sad and no cease in sight.

After a break, the far-right party stunning Japan, making gains in recent elections. Is it the Trump effect or are tourists to blame? I asked experts in Tokyo and in Washington next.

[11:32:56]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

Japan has long been seen as one of the most reliable democracies in the world since its first elections in 1955. The people have time and time again voted for stability. In the past seven decades, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has only ever been out of government for six years.

But are Japanese voters now saying sayonara to that? Recent elections saw the obscure far-right party Sanseito rise from 1 to 15 seats out of a total of 248 upper house seats. That's thanks to its quote, "Japan first" campaign. Sounds familiar?

This week I discussed this stunning result with Tomohiko Taniguchi, a former adviser to the longtime Japanese prime minister, the late [overtalking]; and with Mira Rapp-Hooper, who was a special adviser to President Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome both of you to the program. Let me go straight to you in Tokyo, Mr. Taniguchi, because it's been a

big surprise. Sanseito is a party that, to us anyway, appears to have come out of nowhere. What is it? And how surprising and unusual is this in Japan?

TOMOHIKO TANIGUCHI, FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER TO SHINZO ABE: If this party looks new -- very much new to you, it's also very much new to many in Japan. The Sanseito, the name itself, cannot be translated well in English. If you translate it into English, that's probably the party for political participation. And it's drawn attention and attract -- it's drawn interest from mostly among younger generations because its activities were -- have been based on social media network and it's drawn frustrated bunch of people, frustrated in many ways. The economy and the paralysis in the Japanese political making and the fact that the LDP, the ruling party for many, many years has been split into two -- like there's a conservative wing and a progressive wing.

AMANPOUR: So let me ask you from the U.S. perspective, because obviously Japan is a major U.S. ally.

[11:39:48]

AMANPOUR: How surprised are you and would you say it's like the MAGA wing of the Japanese more conservative party?

MIRA RAPP-HOOPER, FORMER DIRECTOR FOR INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Well, Christiane, it's a great question. From the perspective of a U.S. observer, the rise of Sanseito is definitely a headline out of this upper house election.

But it's also important to keep Sanseito's rise in context. So, while there was definitely popular interest and popular support for this far-right native party, the party still is not on its way to becoming mainstream or having a huge influence over the majority in Japan.

Rather what I think Sanseito's rise points to in this latest election is something that's actually more familiar to us as we look across other industrialized democracies and allied democracies, including in Europe. And that is the fact that there has been more and more attraction to populist parties in general and more dissatisfaction with status quo ruling parties because of the perception that they are not delivering economically.

Now, from the perspective of a U.S. observer, who herself has spent a great deal of time working closely with the Japanese government as part of this indispensable alliance, the prospect of a messier coalition-based future for the Japanese government is a worrisome one because it can be harder to take quick, decisive action, particularly on short fuse issues.

AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you then, Mr. Taniguchi, I mean, some of the stuff that I was reading, preparing for this, was actually really interesting because there's also a backlash against tourism. You know, maybe tourism and immigration sometimes gets mixed up in the whole foreigner basket. But people complaining about how tourists don't respect Japan's traditions or its culture.

How much is this issue of foreigners, whether tourists or immigrants playing there?

TANIGUCHI: Put into a broader perspective, it is not so much a big decisive issue, safe to say. Nonetheless, the rapidity and acuteness of these phenomena have been hitting major headlines day in and day out. Those places that people in Japan have long cherished have become a sort of playground, if you like, for tourists. And that is something that you might feel painful to look at.

And let me point out that when it comes to immigration, one out four registered foreigners, that's what's called, one out of four registered foreigners are the people from Mainland China.

And that is actually giving a source of another concern that the influx of Chinese people to graduate schools, higher education institutions, research labs of major corporations and indeed buying into corporate property in Japan are giving a source of concerns for the Japanese people, because they are from Mainland China. And it is common knowledge that when asked they must report back to the Chinese Communist Party.

So, in that sense, there is a peculiarity in the case of Japanese issue of immigrants or people from abroad.

AMANPOUR: And finally, to you Mira Rapp-Hooper. This all is happening in the context of "America First", the Trump administration, and the tariffs.

I think it's 15 percent on Japan, as it is for Europe and others. What do you see as the end result of this?

RAPP-HOOPER: It's an essential question, Christiane. And the first few months of the Trump administration have indeed been tougher ones for our good friends in Japan.

Over the course of recent months, we've seen the Trump administration push Japan and other allies very hard to spend more money on defense. And while one understands that they want to see allies step up, it's also really important to take on both security and economic issues in the spirit of partnership and in ways that allow our friends in Japan and elsewhere to get to yes whether or not we can keep up that strong alliance momentum in a world where Japan is both facing extremely high tariff rates and coming under pressure to spend more when its fiscal situation makes that very difficult indeed.

AMANPOUR: Well, we are very pleased that we've been able to drill down and put this issue in focus on our program.

So, Mira Rapp-Hooper and Tomohiko Taniguchi, thank you both so much for joining us.

RAPP-HOOPER: Great to be with you.

TANIGUCHI: Thank you very much. (END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And we'll be keeping an eye on that.

Well, coming up the 1990 Gulf War that turned CNN into a household name. It also gave me my start as a foreign correspondent -- in a moment.

[11:44:38]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

35 years ago today, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, its small, oil-rich neighbor, setting off the first Gulf War to kick him back across the border.

It was Americas first post-Cold War crisis, and it was the start of a very complex and tumultuous relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, ending up, of course, with that disastrous U.S. invasion in 2003.

[11:49:48]

AMANPOUR: Now, 1990 was CNN's launch pad as the fledgling network burst onto the world stage. And I rode that wave as well, getting my first big break as a junior foreign correspondent assigned to cover America's massive military buildup in the Saudi desert.

From my archives, a few months before Operation Desert Storm began, my report on the weary U.S. Troops in the desert worried about insufficient supplies and what was yet to come.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three.

AMANPOUR: By the time the suns up, the men of Bravo Company are performing their early morning routine, the start of another day that will be full of ups and downs.

Problems begin showing up at the morning meeting. These platoon leaders have just ended a night of security and reconnaissance training. They tell their commanding officer they're running out of basics, such as batteries to power their night vision equipment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can look at my night vision devices and see my (INAUDIBLE) and my wife --

LT. BILL OWENS, BRAVO COMPANY, U.S. ARMY: Oh yes. We pointed that out to him, too.

AMANPOUR: Lieutenant Bill Owen complains that military supplies and spare parts are not getting to the forward units fast enough.

LT. ROBERT FORTE, BRAVO COMPANY, U.S. ARMY: We've ordered it and requested it and everything else. And what they do, they just say, yes, yes. Drive on.

AMANPOUR: Lieutenant Robert Forte says it's plaguing every level of training here, right down to individual weapons maintenance. Soldiers see the sand wearing out their rifles, but their spare parts haven't arrived yet.

SGT. STEPHEN HALL, BRAVO COMPANY, U.S. ARMY: As a result, we go out there and they'll try and use that weapon. It's not going to work. It'll work for a few minutes and it'll stop. It's not -- it's not something that really makes us feel like we're combat-ready.

AMANPOUR: If there is combat, these ground forces will take the fire on the front lines. They haven't even begun full training with their armored vehicles.

More than a month after being deployed, they have yet to train with live fire, and they are still another month away from conducting combat maneuvers with their Bradley fighting vehicles and M1 tanks.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maneuver training. Non-existent. That's your point, right?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, big time.

LT. FORTE: It's important that we get our trucks out there and we're rolling, we're training. I need to have a feel for that. And that only happens over time and experience. I don't have that now.

AMANPOUR: The mighty m1s are supposed to be Iraq's worst nightmare. They've never been battle tested And so far their desert training consists mainly of checking their hydraulics and their sights.

They don't move much because commanders won't risk having parts break down before they get the spares.

It's the same story with the Bradleys.

OWENS: No parts, no roll. It's the bottom line. And with our -- with our maintenance problems being so bad that it affects our training.

AMANPOUR: Four of this company's 14 Bradleys are down. So the soldiers wave happily when the first supply truck they've seen in weeks rolls in.

But for the mechanics working into the night, the bad news is the new parts aren't always good.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's got broken wires in the wiring harness.

AMANPOUR: While some soldiers anxiously watch and wait, others smile, knowing they needed more than just a day in the sun.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Now, this was also my very first experience with official American government anger. They were livid about this report and accused us of aiding and abetting the enemy with these reveals.

As it was, of course, the vastly superior American and allied force quickly defeated Saddam's military and liberated Kuwait. And I was part of an all-female team based in patriarchal Saudi Arabia. It worked.

When we come back in the wake of a very un-English explosion of public euphoria, when the fantastic Lionesses brought home the Euros football or soccer trophy and inspired young women everywhere.

And a sequel is announced to the cult classic "Bend It Like Beckham". A word from director Gurinder Chadha when we come back.

[11:53:33]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: And finally, amidst the war turmoil and heartbreak, it can be hard to find the joy. And yet, this week right here in the U.K., that cup has been overflowing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

A whole week of celebrations for the England women's football team, the Lionesses, who successfully defended their Euros title with its nail-biting penalty shootouts.

The tournament drew a record 650,000 plus spectators to stadiums this year to watch these teams.

Two decades ago, a popular and prescient little film called "Bend It Like Beckham" was hailed as a breakthrough moment, inspiring a generation of young women to grow up, join football teams across the world and lead the sport to new highs.

This week, director Gurinder Chadha revealed its back off the bench with a sequel on the boil. Speaking to me around the 20th anniversary of "Bend It Like Beckham", Chadha told me what made her do it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GURINDER CHADHA, DIRECTOR, "BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM": -- I made the film was because I just felt that there was so much pressure on girls to conform in a particular way. Both Indian, white, black, whatever.

[11:59:49]

CHADHA: If you're a girl, you know, there is so much pressure on you to look a particular way, behave a particular way, act a particular way. And at that time, the idea of a girl wanting to play football was just weird, you know?

And so I thought, why not put an Indian girl next to the antithesis of that, which is soccer, football, and bring the two together?

(END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: It's such a great story.

That's all we have time for. 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.

[12:00:25]