Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Sources: Israel And Hezbollah Agree To Renew Ceasefire; World's Oil Stockpiles Have Fallen Sharply In Recent Months; Burnham Wins Parliament Seat As Pressure Mounts On Starmer; International Day Held To Honor Refugees; Reflecting Pool Plagued By Peeling Material, Algae After Renovation; Aired 12-1p ET
Aired June 19, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Sources say a new ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has been reached. The second hour of "One World"
starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(12:00:33)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's a lot of discussion, the MOU, the gentleman's agreements, the final deal. Words
don't matter, ladies and gentlemen. We're about verification.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Where does the U.S.-Iran agreement stand now? Details on what we know, what we don't, and how it affects your wallet.
Also ahead, a right to safety and security. "One World" marks World Refugee Day tomorrow.
Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY BURNHAM, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: We have an opportunity to turn the tide, to make the country feel like it's working
again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Who is Andy Burnham? And does he really have a chance at taking Keir Starmer's job? We'll discuss as well.
All right. Coming to you live from New York. I'm Zain Asher.
You're watching "One World". Dramatic 24 hours in the Middle East. U.S.- Iran negotiations delayed for now after deadly night of clashes in Lebanon. This latest escalation stems from a Hezbollah attack that killed four
Israeli soldiers.
In response, Israel carried out a wave of strikes in Lebanon that the Health Ministry says killed at least 47 people. Sources tell CNN that
Israel and Hezbollah have now agreed to renew a ceasefire, though an IDF's spokesperson refused to acknowledge it during a briefing earlier.
A Hezbollah member of parliament tells CN they will abide by the ceasefire if Israel abides by it as well.
Meantime, U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing back on criticism of the agreement with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE You had talked about you only wanted unconditional surrender. And the MOU doesn't look like unconditional surrender.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is?
TRUMP: I think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Betsy Klein is standing by for us at the White House.
But first, let's go to Oren Liebermann in Jerusalem. So, Oren, you and I were talking last hour about this ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. I
mean, obviously, there is going to be a lot of skepticism as to whether or not this ceasefire will actually last, especially given the pressure that
Netanyahu is under to keep uh northern Israel -- or all of Israel, obviously, but especially northern Israel safe.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: I won't predict whether it will or won't last, but we have seen ceasefires fall apart in the past,
sometimes within a matter of days, which is why we keep on needing to renew these ceasefires.
We saw a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon earlier this month, in April, in November 2024, and yet, the fighting continues. So, we'll see what
happens here. That ceasefire, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation and the matter, went into effect at 4:00 p.m. So about three
hours ago. There were some Lebanese reports of continued Israeli strikes. About a half an hour after that.
But from what we can see at this moment, it looks like the ceasefire is holding. Now that follows an incredibly intense period of fighting as you
pointed out. Shortly after midnight tonight, the Israeli military says a Hezbollah explosive device, either an explosive drone potentially or an
anti-tank missile, hit an Israeli tank in southern Lebanon, killing four soldiers inside.
Israel carried out strikes, not only in southern Lebanon but also in the Beqaa Valley, targeting what they say are more than 100 Hezbollah targets.
And that led to, according to Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, at least 47 people killed in Lebanon, making it one of the deadliest days we have
seen since the war with Iran began, some three and a half months ago.
So now we wait to see where this goes. And it's significant not only because of Israel and Lebanon and because of the fighting we've seen there
between Israel and Iran's proxy Hezbollah, but also because Iran is demanding that the ceasefire in Lebanon take shape and hold before they're
willing to come to negotiations.
And there is an awfully short window to get those negotiations done if the 60 days are not extended from the memorandum of understanding and that is
Iran's leverage. They have seen that when they pressure and demand that Israel stop attacks in Lebanon, it is President Donald Trump himself who
exerts that pressure on Israel to pull back and to halt the fighting.
We have seen, and we've seen it once again now, Trump put boundaries around what Israel or what he will allow Israel to do in Lebanon. And that is the
reason this ceasefire could hold, simply because Trump demands it, even with the domestic pressure on Netanyahu to carry out larger strikes and hit
the capital of Beirut as well.
[12:05:07]
ASHER: All right. Oren Liebermann, live for us there. Thank you.
Betsy, let me bring you in. Just talk to us about how the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump has changed as a result of this war. I mean,
obviously, if the ceasefire does hold, and as Oren was saying, it's impossible to guess what's going to happen, but it is, of course, very
fragile.
If it does hold, the U.S. and Iran will now begin very thorny, difficult negotiations in that 60-day window over its nuclear program and also the
sort of control that Iran is trying to exert over the Strait of Hormuz. Just walk us through what happens from this point forward.
BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER:Well, first of all, that relationship between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu has only
grown increasingly complicated throughout the course of this conflict.
But just taking a step back, the agreement that was reached between the U.S. and Iran really was a first step. The next part is the hard part. They
are going to start this 60-day period to have intensive technical negotiations on the thorniest remaining issues of Iran's nuclear program
and how to dismantle that and what to do with Iran's nuclear material. That is all very, very complicated.
Vice President J.D. Vance's planned Thursday trip to Switzerland to begin those talks in earnest, postponed, but a White House official telling CNN
that they are, quote, prepared to depart at the first available opportunity.
So the crux of this issue right now is these ongoing violence in Lebanon. Iran making very clear that they were not prepared to start this next round
of talks until that ceased. And that was part of the agreement that was agreed to in this 14-point plan that they signed earlier this week.
Now asked if the U.S. was willing to provide those types of guarantees, a source familiar with the matter told me earlier today Hezbollah violated
the ceasefire. Israel has agreed to let it be, which was relayed to the Iranians, and it's up to Hezbollah to stop.
Then we got word of that Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, which was mediated by the U.S. along with Qatar, according to one official.
Now this situation really underscores, as Oren laid out, how President Trump has been able to apply pressure in that relationship with Netanyahu.
The president addressing that in a new interview with "Axios." LISten.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If it weren't for Donald Trump, Israel would have been eviscerated.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your relationship with Netanyahu's.
TRUMP: It's good, but we have to keep him a little bit sane.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to be able to control Israel from attacking Lebanon?
TRUMP: Yes. I will be. I mean, I would --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How?
TRUMP: They have a lot of respect for me. And they do as I say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KLEIN: Now, it's unclear if all of this taken together is going to be enough for Iran to get these talks back on track. Again, the U.S.
delegation stands ready.
But one source has conveyed some skepticism that this next round of negotiations can even provide a final agreement. So, we're going to be
watching all of that and the vice president's schedule very closely, Zain.
ASHER: All right. Betsy Klein, Oren Liebermann, thank you both so much.
Well, let's take a live look at the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz right now. Reopening it is a key part of the U.S.-Iran deal. Iran says that ships
crossing the Strait must register to ensure safe passage.
Twenty-five commercial ships reportedly crossed through the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. That is the most since April.
Meantime, the deal has not been smooth sailing for President Trump. He is facing sharp criticism over it, even from within his own party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): President Trump deserves credit for making Iran weaker than it's been in decades. I just hope that we don't squander the
leverage that we've built through these military strikes and allow Iran to get back up off the mat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: The closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the war has left the oil market in a really precarious state. According to analytics firm Kepler,
the world lost just over one billion barrels of oil supply.
Our business editor -- senior reporter, rather, David Goldman, joins us live now to talk about that. David, I just gave you a promotion live on
air.
DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: I'll take it. Thanks so much, Zain.
ASHER: But just in terms -- just in terms of what happens next with the oil markets. I mean, obviously, as I just mentioned, the world lost about a
billion barrels of oil because of this war that lasted several months.
We know that Iran has not shot at any ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz for the second day in a row. So we are, I guess, making progress.
But how long do the oil market return to normal, David?
[12:10:01]
GOLDMAN: Yes, it's going to take a little bit of time. I'm going to explain why that is. 1.15 billion barrels of oil is no joke. And if you want to
understand how significant that is, listen to Donald Trump who said that in about four weeks, we're going to see Bedlam. What is he talking about?
Well, the 1.15 billion barrels of oil that we have lost have had a drastic effect on the reserves of oil that we hold all around the world. The
emergency oil, that's the strategic petroleum reserves, are at their lowest point around the world since 1990.
Here in the United States since 1983, that's the year I was born. That's when they were filling the strategic petroleum reserve. This is serious
business. It puts us in a vulnerable state if anything were to happen like a hurricane or a resumption of war.
But it's not just the emergency oil, it's the oil that we use every single day. Take a look at Cushing, Oklahoma. This is where we call -- this is
what we call the pipeline crossroads of America. It's where most of the oil is brought in and then pipe out to refineries around the country.
It has a capacity of 75 million barrels, but we, last week, just hit 20. And 20 is an important number in Cushing because it is the operational
floor. It's like when you have a coffee urn and you hit the spigot and nothing comes out, my nightmare.
It's when you kind of have to turn that earn toward you a little bit to get the coffee out. That's what's going on in Cushing right now. It makes it
very hard to pipe the oil out. And so you think, well, thank goodness we opened up the Strait. Everything's solved.
Not exactly, not yet anyway, because you've got to get all of those tankers out of the Strait. And there are tons and tons of mines in the Strait that
need to be deactivated or gotten rid of.
Only then can you actually get the tankers back into the Strait. And that's crucial because you have to be able to get the oil out of those tanks so
that you can start to produce oil and then ship it out and it takes a long time to get that oil to its destination. It goes as fast as an oil tanker,
which is not very fast, about as fast as you can ride a bike.
So how long is it going to take to refill all of those inventories that we've drawn down and continue to draw down?
Well, The IEA, this is the International Energy Agency, says it's going to be about a five million barrel glut of supply going into next year. That's
good news.
But at five million barrels a day, it's still 230 days until we refill, Zain. So that's not exactly a ton of good news there.
I will leave you with one piece of good news, though. Even though we are way, way, down in our overall supply losses, we were at a pretty big glut
before all of this. Diesel, even though we're at the lowest point in our supply since 2003, we're only 12 percent below our average. Gas is only
five percent below.
So some folks think it's OK that oil prices have fallen and they can continue to be at these low levels. Let's hope that they're right, Zain.
ASHER: Let's hope. All right. David Goldman, live for us there. Thank you so much.
GOLDMAN: Thank you so much.
ASHER: All right. I want to turn now to an election which could shape the future of British politics that has played out in a small town called
Makerfield in northern England.
Labour's Andy Burnham, the man to -- the main rival rather to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has won the seat renewing chatter about a future
leadership bid. Mr. Starmer says that he won't walk away and would stand if challenged. Burnham had a message of change for his new constituents.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BURNHAM: The word Makerfield, in the future, must be known as a byword for the change that came to British politics. This is the moment. We've been on
a path for 40 years that simply hasn't worked for people and places in this part of the world and this now is the change moment.
We have an opportunity to turn the tide, to make the country feel like it's working again, to make people see that politics can make a positive
difference, to make people feel hope again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: All right. Let's bring in Martin Farr, senior lecturer in contemporary British history at Newcastle University.
I mean, obviously there is so much excitement, Martin, around Andy Burnham. I mean, a lot of people seem to love him, seems to be very popular. Not
only did he win this seat, but he won by quite a significant margin, suggesting that he really does have popular support. A lot of people love
his common touch.
However, it is very easy, as I'm sure you know, to seem impressive and even be impressive when you're not in government, when you are criticizing the
prime minister, when you are an armchair critic.
[12:15:09]
It is very different to actually govern. When you become British prime minister, you are dealing with a whole host of issues at once. You're
dealing with the economy. You're dealing with an aging population. You're dealing with a cost of living crisis. You're dealing with managing the
U.K.'s relationship with President Trump, one of the most unpredictable leaders in modern history.
I mean, you're dealing with the fallout of Brexit. The list goes on. National security, Ukraine, Iran.
It is a universe away from being the mayor of Manchester. Just walk us through whether or not this man just having the common touch and being
beloved is going to be enough. The real test obviously comes when he's at 10 Downing Street. Does he have what it takes to run Britain at a time like
this?
MARTIN FARR, SENIOR LECTURER IN CONTEMPORARY BRITISH HISTORY: That was far from a compelling job spec, Zain, but there's a queue of people who'd like
to be prime minister. And anyone who's prime minister is usually for the first time prime minister.
He could argue, as an American governor of a state might, that he has had to run something quite large and make decisions, which is more than most
people who become prime minister ever did. Tony Blair, David Cameron, both became prime minister without any ministerial experience whatsoever.
So, it's rather random, depending on circumstance and -- but you're right. Burnham's appeal is that he's relatable, he's personable, he's affable. And
also, he's not part of this government.
The fact that he would be find these challenges the same as Keir Starmer is the kind of thing that Keir Starmer and his dwindling band of supporters
have been saying for weeks now. But it's had no influence because Burnham is finally standing, he's won.
And winning was very important, but he may have won by one vote as the M.P. for Makerfield. He's won by an emphatic victory. And that really is part of
the message, is that he provides the best option, the best opportunity of engaging with former Labour voters who are now attracted to these parties
of the right, one could say of Reform U.K. with Nigel Farage and the far right with Restore Britain and Rupert Lowe.
He's much more relatable. He's much more charismatic. He's a better politician. He may find it as hard to be a chief executive. And many of the
profiles of him in the last few weeks anticipate in this moment whether that he likes to be liked and he's rather prone to being indecisive.
But I think with the right team behind him and with the precedent of the last two years of the Starmer administration, that he'll be hopeful that he
will avoid the pitfalls that Starmer has fallen into.
But essentially, yes, we have the chronic situation you described and we have stagnant economic conditions, stagnant wage growth, stagnant living
standards. And his big pitch is to improve living standards because the best chance Labour have of being in government after the next election in
three years' time, if not in majority, at least the largest single party, is addressing the concerns of voters who don't feel their concerns have
been addressed by the last two years of the Starmer administration.
ASHER: I mean, you're right that his appeal is, of course, the common touch. And, you know, in politics, that is gold. I mean, people can think,
people sort of going to Tesco's and sort of, you know, counting their pound coins and not sort of, not knowing if they can afford their groceries for
the week, can feel the prime minister is just like them and can fully relate to them. That is gold as a -- I mean, you cannot put a price tag on
that.
But you've mentioned something that I think is really important. This idea that he likes to be liked. That can be a bit of an Achilles heel because as
prime minister, you have to make really unpopular decisions. You have to -- you have to love the country enough to make decisions that might hurt the
country in the short term, but benefit the country 20 years, 30 years from now.
Even if everybody hates you in the short term, you have to sort of know, I'm going to still decide this, because I know that it's in Britain's best
interest in a decade from now. That is very difficult to do, especially if you are someone who likes to be liked.
So from that perspective, again, you know, does he have what it takes, given what you just said about liking to be liked?
FARR: I think the fastest way for a popular politician to be unpopular is to become prime minister. And whoever becomes prime minister will shortly
become the most unpopular prime minister in history, because the public attitudes, voter attitudes, are extremely skeptical, bordering on cynical.
Patience is much shorter. They have had 10 years of stagnant wage growth, 10 years of cost-of-living crisis.
They're not prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to a politician, even one who is popular and affable and can communicate a clear narrative. He
will be judged on achievements. And focus groups and interviews and even (INAUDIBLE) present an electorate who are unconvinced that any government's
had any positive effect on their lives in the last 20 years, really since the financial crash.
So, it will be enormously challenging for him. And Margaret Thatcher always said, she wasn't loved, but she was respected. But she had a much easier
situation in so many ways. When Thatcher was prime minister, elected three times, two landslides. We had two parties of government, and they
alternated one change to the other eventually, sometimes 18 years, sometimes 13 years, but their time to be in office would eventually come.
[12:20:12]
Now, we have this extraordinary situation in England of five-party politics. In Scotland, there are six-party politics. And if Restore Britain
is going advance, it seems to have been doing, and it came third in Makerfield last night, we could have six-party politics in England.
And with a system really designed for two parties. And so, the next election is extremely, much, much more than any election I've ever known
personally or historically, unpredictable.
And the -- the kind of coalitions we may have after the election also won't lend themselves very well to public satisfaction. So, a big part of
Burnham's appeal, one of his most consistent policies, is electoral reform and proportional voting.
And so, I suspect for the first time in history, a Labour manifesto in the next election will have electoral reform as one of its key commitments.
ASHER: For the people who voted for him in Makerfield, I mean, just explain the calculation, because everybody knows that he has prime ministerial
ambitions. I mean, he's not been quiet about it.
You know, they're voting for somebody who's using their town as essentially a launch pad. And we all know that for this politician, Makerfield is not
the last stop on the tube for him. It's not the last stop on the subway, right? He's got bigger ambitions.
So, why -- why was he so popular, given that the electorate there knows that?
FARR: Well, electorates quite like having an M.P. who's the P.M. They do quite like that. Those in Finchley like to have Margaret Thatcher, those in
Sedgefield like having Tony Blair, also in North of England. It's been reformed for some time now. So, there's that side of it too.
But this is -- it sort of reforms campaign essentially against Burnham, which was that he will be using as a stepping stone elsewhere.
The reason why -- why he prevailed was that he's mayor of Greater Manchester in the mayoral elections three years ago now. He did very well
in across the sector, certainly in Makerfield.
And they see one of their own. They see someone who could possibly rebalance the age-old imbalance in Britain of North and -- North and South,
which is enormously important for voters in the North who feel neglected.
They feel that Burnham, through what's called Manchesterism, has given a voice to the North. He's called the King of the North. He -- he spoke up
for the North during the COVID lockdowns. They see someone who is -- who is speaking to power as they envisage power to exist in London.
And whether it's Keir Starmer or it's Tony Blair or it's Wes Streeting and possibly a succession of London lawyers in one way or another, Burnham has
this ability to connect with voters outside of London, which is its own electoral kind of world, to voters in places like Makerfield, which it must
be said, he may voted overwhelmingly for Reform.
It's a remarkable situation. He's had a 23 percent turnaround on the last general election, on a higher turnout than the last general election, and
effectively reversed the voters who voted last month for reform candidates.
Now, this may be a spasm. It may be a moment in time. He can't sustain it. But in terms of its own achievement at this point in the electoral cycle,
it's remarkable. And that's why it is simply a matter of time when it becomes prime minister. It's become inevitable.
One vote as MP will be sufficient, but the majority he has makes it incontrovertible that he sees himself as to his supporters as the most
likely people to be able to confront the prospect of a far-right government in Britain.
And that does have the effect of mobilizing tactical voting. Reform, sorry, the Greens, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had a combined vote share
of 3.3 percent in this election yesterday.
Their voters were voting Labour to keep out Reform. So there's a new system of electoral politics, of tactical voting to an extent never seen before,
which he would hope electoral reform would prevent the need for voting negatively. One could vote positively in the future.
ASHER: That is fascinating. And as you point out, he really has put the North on the map. He's putting Makerfield on the map, Manchester,
obviously, but just this idea that he could be a bridge between the North and the South.
But I will say that having six or seven British prime ministers in a decade, it shows that the problems facing the country is likely bigger than
just one person.
Martin Farr, we have to leave it there. ah Thank you so much.
All right. Still to come here on "One World."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHEERING) (END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: All right. World Cup fever and the joyous festivities continue. Details and the latest wins and losses, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:25:13]
ASHER: All right. Saturday marks World Refugee Day, held by the U.N. to honor those who have been forced to flee.
As of the end of 2025, there were 117.8 million people across the globe forcibly displaced from their homes. That's one in every 70 people in the
world.
Barham Salih is the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. He's the former president of Iraq and is himself a former refugee, having fled the brutal
regime of Saddam Hussein. Salih says, "As a former refugee, I know firsthand how protection and opportunity can change the course of a life."
He joins us live now uh from Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. Barham, thank you so much for being with us.
So, we got the sort of report --
BARHAM SALIH, U.N. HIGH COMMISIONER FOR REFUGEES: Thank you for having me.
ASHER: -- U.N. Of course. We got the report from the UNHCR releasing its latest report on June 10th saying that the number of displaced people in
the world fell in 2025 for the first time in over a decade.
But, of course, there are some important caveats there, because some of those refugees are returning to places like Syria, for example, to
Afghanistan. You have the fact that you've got wars in the Middle East raging, increasing the number of refugees. You've got, obviously, what's
happening in Sudan.
And, of course, the fact that the Trump administration has cut back funding. And a number of European governments have cut back funding when it
comes to refugees. You've got the Trump administration cutting back USAID and also raising the number of white Afrikaners from South Africa that
they're claiming as refugees to the United States.
So talk to us about the headwinds facing the global population of refugees right now.
SALIH: Well, we need to assess the dynamics against the backdrop of really record people who are being forcibly displaced.
Last -- at the end of last year, we had 41.6 million refugees. These are people who have crossed international borders. And of those, compared to
the previous year, we had a net decline of 1.2 million people. It's a modest decline, nevertheless welcome.
Even though I must note, as you mentioned, some of these returns of refugees who gone back to their home countries were not entirely voluntary
and in ideal situations, they were under adverse conditions.
In the case of Syria in 2025, we saw 1.3 million Syrian refugees from neighboring countries, from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, really going back and
trying to make it back in their own country.
This year, since the beginning of this year, more than half a million Syrians went back home.
In the case of Afghans, many Afghans have been sent back from Iran and Pakistan. Many could have been under different kinds of conditions that
could not be considered as ideal or voluntary.
[12:30:10]
I'm personally going to Afghanistan in the next couple of weeks to really assess the situation and make sure that people are safe.
And also, for us to be there to provide for the needs of these people who have been displaced and going through this trauma.
The reality of displacement remains very challenging at the time, as you've mentioned, of shrinking humanitarian resources. This is truly not a good
situation to be in. As I said, record numbers of displacement, yet, many countries around the world cutting their contributions and donations.
I don't think this is a time to look away. We really need to make sure that these refugees are taken care of.
And also, by the way, as UNHCR, while we are providing desperately needed humanitarian assistance in many emergency situations, that is really
literally the difference between life and death, we also want to focus in solutions on national inclusion.
I'm in Ethiopia now to launch with the government here and -- and quite an innovative program called Makatet by which Ethiopia will accommodate
refugees, more than a million people in this country to provide them with documentation, access to the legal services, access to the job market.
We need to work with the development actors, with the World Bank, international financial institutions, private sector, donors to really come
in with development assistance to these host communities to ensure that this process succeeds instead of refugees being stuck in camps for long
periods of time dependent on humanitarian assistance.
And, by the way, also becoming prey to radicalization, prey to human traffickers who get them on these horrendously dangerous journeys across
the Mediterranean and elsewhere to really look for solutions in these sources of -- in these host nations and many countries in Africa, elsewhere
in the world are really willing to take them to do their part.
We really need to be there to shoulder responsibility and help them make it.
ASHER: I -- I wonder what you think of the fact that we're in a time where various countries, refugee and humanitarian policies have been somewhat
politicized.
So, in the United States, we've seen the U.S. essentially taking a cue from what we saw in Great Britain, where the U.K. tried to have a silent policy
where they sent refugees and migrants to Rwanda as a third country.
The U.S. sort of tried to imitate that as well, trying to sort of send refugees and migrants to third countries, in Africa, be it Eswatini, be it
South Sudan, be it Rwanda as well.
The U.K.'s policy failed. And we did only see a small number of refugees or migrants from the U.S. being sent to these third African countries. But
just the fact that we're in a time where those sorts of policies are being cheered and adopted and championed, your thoughts on that, sir?
SALIH: I really -- we are living in a moment of history when many of these issues are too convoluted and highly politicized and even weaponized.
I admit and acknowledge that nations have a sovereign right to legal procedures, to administer immigration controls and deal with migration
according to the laws. These laws needs to be humane, consistent with international human rights law and with due process.
Refugees are a category of people, people fleeing conflict, fleeing persecution, and have a well-founded fear of persecution. These are
intended for protection in accordance with the 1951 convention, which was proclaimed 75 years ago.
And remember, this convention came into being in 1951 to address refugee exodus in the aftermath of the Second World War in Europe. It was meant to
deal with the European problem or challenge. And since then, it has become a global instrument to deal with refugee issues.
Protection is at the heart of the convention. People who have well-founded fear of persecution deserve protection, deserve support, and deserve ways
and legal ways by which the situations could be addressed.
I say behind every number of these refugees is a life, is a story. And if you look around, whether in the U.K., in the United States, elsewhere in
Europe, many of these refugees who have made it and have been accommodating.
[12:35:02]
By the way, myself was a refugee in the United Kingdom and -- and was given protection and was given opportunity through education.
These -- I'm not saying myself, but many others have become contributors to these societies, whether in science, in business, entrepreneurship,
innovation. Really, weaponization of this refugee issue is not the way to solve it, it's not the moral thing, it's not the humane thing, and I don't
think it is entirely smart either.
Let's look at holistic approach by which we really help these host nations who are accommodating large numbers of refugees, and they are already
suffering and experiencing huge, huge problems of their own.
We need to be there to help them with development to increase their capacity to deal with this problem, sharing the responsibility with them
instead of leaving these refugees to be prey to human traffickers and all other kinds of types of problems.
At the end of the day, developed nations also need to shoulder responsibility with pathways to legal access to the asylum systems. And
that way, I think this dynamics that has become so polarizing, so difficult, I think it can be dealt with.
At the end of the day, any of us, either has been a refugee, the son or a daughter of a refugee, or a descendant of a refugee. We really cannot
escape our moral and our shared humanity as we deal with this problem. These are lives. These are not mere numbers. I don't think, given the state
of politics in the world today, we simply cannot afford to look the other way.
ASHER: Yes. And I think that, you know, what you said about yourself being a refugee, I mean, after the -- under Saddam Hussein, you had to flee to
the U.K. You studied at the University of Cardiff, Liverpool. And you were just a key example of somebody who lived in exile, who was a refugee, who
then later returned and played such an active role in rebuilding your own country, obviously Iraq.
So, thank you for the work that you do. In many ways, you are the perfect person for the job that you have right now. Barham Salih, thank you so
much. We appreciate having you on the show.
SALIH: Thank you so very much. Thank you.
ASHER: Of course. We'll be right back with more after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:22]
ASHER: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Zain Asher.
More now on our top story. Lebanese health officials say the Israeli military has killed at least 47 people in Lebanon today. This after a
Hezbollah attack killed four soldiers -- four Israeli soldiers. Sources say that Israel and Hezbollah have now agreed to renew a ceasefire.
A Hezbollah member of parliament tells CNN they will abide by the ceasefire as long as Israel does the same.
Time now for The Exchange. Joining us live now is Yaakov Katz, co-founder of Middle East America Dialogue. He's also a senior columnist at "The
Jerusalem Post" and the author of "While Israel Slept."
He's live for us from Jerusalem. Yaakov, thank you so much for being with us. So, we have this shaky, likely very fragile ceasefire at this point in
time between Israel and Hezbollah.
But I think what's really interesting is how the dynamics have played out between Netanyahu and Trump. Obviously, Trump has significant leverage over
Netanyahu, but he does not control him. And I think that has sort of caught Trump by surprise here, the fact that he can sort of tell Netanyahu to stop
in Lebanon. And at least until now, that hasn't been the case.
Just walk us through what this war with Iran has revealed about the relationship between Donald Trump and Netanyahu and just how fragile that
relationship actually is.
YAAKOV KATZ, CO-FOUNDER, MIDDLE EAST-AMERICA DIALOGUE:I think you're exactly right, Zain, because on the one hand, what you're seeing or what
the war showed us when it was launched on February 28th was just how close this alliance is. Israeli-American fighter jets flying side by side,
officers from both countries sharing intelligence, planning operations. And it seemed that there wasn't any -- any daylight at all between Prime
Minister Netanyahu and President Donald Trump.
But now, when we look at the situation, the way that Trump has been talking about Netanyahu, the way that Vice President Vance has been talking about
Israel and Netanyahu really shows that there's great tension.
And I think that it stems from the fact that on Iran, Israel has really no choice but to adhere to the fact that the president now wants to end this
war. He might not be happy with it, but it understands on Iran, that's a global issue that included the United States, that was for the U.S. to lead
on.
On -- on Hezbollah though, in Lebanon, something that's on our border that threatens directly the residents of northern Israel who live in those
borderline communities. That's a reality that Israel cannot accept.
And there is a line, I think, that even Netanyahu wants to get along with the president, he can't accept that reality where it's being dictated you
have to stop fire in Lebanon when we are still being attacked there.
ASHER: We all know that Donald Trump is unpredictable. And we've seen so many alliances with Trump that have just sort of ended really badly. I
mean, obviously one of most famous ones is -- is Elon Musk.
And when it comes to Donald Trump and whether or not he likes you, I mean, there is a difference between June and July. I mean, he might like you
today, but who knows, who knows if he's still going to be your friend tomorrow?
Given how much the U.S. supports Israel diplomatically, militarily, just in terms of funding, how much concern is there within Israel that just given
how unpredictable Donald Trump is, that some of that support could be in jeopardy if Netanyahu continues to strike southern Lebanon and then puts
this deal with Iran at risk?
KATZ: Well, I think that's exactly the concern, Zain, is that people who understand just how existential the relationship is in this alliance
between Israel and the United States is, primarily for the state of Israel. There are benefits for the United States, but it's primary for Israel.
We look at our Air Force, for example, all of Israel's fighter jets, its combat aircraft, F-15, F-16s, F-35s, they're American made. That just,
right there, creates a -- a need and a reliance on the United States to continue to get the technical the spare parts, the assistance.
We saw over the last three years, ever since almost October 7th, just how much America has been at the side of Israel when it comes to missile
defense, when it comes to aid. And this could go throughout almost 80 years of Israel's history.
And -- and therefore, we understand, I definitely understand how important this is. And -- and as a result, Netanyahu has to try to thread a very
careful needle or line here. Because on the one hand, he wants to push back. And it's important to push back because there are real security
interests that are at risk or at danger for Israel, primarily what's happening in Lebanon with Hezbollah, if they're allowed to rebuild, if
they're allowed to redeploy along the border.
But on the other hand, like you pointed out, if he goes too far and Donald Trump decides, I'm done with Israel, that will have serious repercussions.
[12:45:04]
Not to mention the political consequences for Netanyahu. He's now in an election campaign. Israel will go to the polls at the end of October. Does
he want Donald Trump, for example, small little thing that he could say, I think it's time for Israel to have new leadership? I mean, that would be
potentially devastating for the prime minister at a time of elections.
ASHER: When you think about just the Israeli interpretation of the memorandum of understanding, this idea that Iran could, underlining the
word could, have access to $300 billion worth of investment funds, then, of course, the Israeli perspective is that they will -- I mean, who knows, but
the Israeli fear is that they're going to spend that money on Hezbollah, on their proxies, perhaps on their nuclear program.
Donald Trump's comments such as, oh, it's totally fine for Iran to have ballistic missiles, because after all, you know, what's the problem? Their
neighbors have that. I can totally understand why they would want to have ballistic missiles.
When you think about what else is in this agreement, I just sort of wonder whether or not the Israelis truly feel that they are safer after this war
compared to before this war.
KATZ: I think overwhelmingly, there's a feeling right now of great insecurity inside Israel. There is fear right now. Because when Israelis
look at the last three years almost, since October 7th, not just at Iran, Zain. They look at Gaza where Hamas is still in existence. They look to the
north in Lebanon where Hezbollah has survived.
And now, of course, to Iran, which is emerging from this deal based on the parameters that we've seen with hundreds of billions of dollars potentially
at its disposal to rearm and to redeploy to its proxies, to have ballistic missiles.
I mean, you've mentioned what Trump said. I heard a Republican senator said that they need missiles for self-defense. I mean, seriously? The Iran which
attacks America, which attacks Israel, which attacks Gulf States, all allies of the United States, they need ballistic missiles for self-defense?
There's great concern here that something has changed in the calculation and in the understanding of who is the bad guy in this region. Because we
all understand, I think everyone in this region understands, that it is Iran.
And if something has now changed in that understanding in the United States, then we will have a problem because America is so important in the
role that it plays here in this region to create security, to create stability, and to try to forge a path forward for coexistence.
ASHER: If you're Iran, you're going to be even more motivated after this war to develop weapons to protect yourself because you're seeing how
unpredictable the United States actually is.
All right. Yaakov Katz, thank you so much for that. Appreciate the conversation.
KATZ: Thank you.
ASHER: All right. Still to come, plagued by problems, the Trump administration just spent millions on renovations for Washington's
reflecting pool, but it certainly doesn't look like it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In fact, right now, you're looking at one of the biggest problems here that is turning this into a $16 million
headache for this administration. We'll explain in just a moment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:38]
ASHER: All right. Washington's reflecting pool appears to be plagued with problems. There's now blue material peeling off of the bottom of the pool
after President Trump's $14 million renovation.
Tom Foreman is at the reflecting pool. I mean, they spent $14 million and it actually ends up looking worse.
You've got -- you obviously got the issue of algae bloom. You've got that hydrogen peroxide being poured in. And -- and now, there's apparently paint
peeling off. Just -- just walk us through what you're seeing, Tom.
FOREMAN: A lot of things aren't going well here, Zain. This is what we're talking about. This is one of the latest hot spots that everyone's been
focusing on. You can see down here this blue sealant, supposed to be American flag blue. I'm going to touch it here, not -- not really to pull
it up any, but just so you can see it.
That's what's happening in this spot. There were actually tourists coming along a short while ago who were tearing pieces up to take away as
souvenirs. And then the algae, yes, you can see it out here. It is spread out here.
They've been working every daylight hour. They're pumping oxygen into the water to try to stop process of the algae blooming. They're using these
sort of hydro vacuums out here to suck the water out.
And yet, for all of the efforts to get this cleared off, it stretches from here through most of the pool all the way down there. And everybody coming
by, like the tourists who collected samples, they're noticing. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It looks bad. I just see green, green slime.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Pouring all that peroxide into it clearly didn't help. I feel for the ducks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOREMAN: And I'm going to walk you right over here. I'm walking you right over here because one of the arguments from the administration has been
that the water that they're dealing with here is completely clear.
Well, this is the water coming from those hydro vacuums out there. And this is the color it has been, sometimes even darker, as it comes out here. It's
absolutely not clear water as named.
One of the big questions, Zain, is if, you know, the -- the spores that create algae are microscopic. So, even if they clear away what you can see
here, that does not in any way guarantee that what's behind it is not more of the same starting to grow as soon as they pass, which in the hot weather
of Washington D.C. happens every summer. Zain?
ASHER: All right. Tom Foreman, in Washington for us. Thank you so much.
We'll be right back with more after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:55:36]
ASHER: All right. Team Canada is celebrating its first win of the World Cup and it was real refreshing. Canadians scored six goals against a short-
handed team from Qatar which received two red cards during the match.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: And Mexico defeated South Korea one-nil in a highly anticipated showdown as well. Mexico is the first team to book its ticket to the
knockout round.
And Team USA returns to the pitch in two hours time, taking off today's action. The Stars and Stripes will take on Socceroos of Australia in
Seattle, Washington.
All right. That does it for this hour of "One World." I'm Zain Asher. Thank you so much for watching. "Amanpour" is up next. You're watching CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
