Cuba is Running Out of Oil

Summary

Amanpour – “Cuba is Running Out of Oil”

Date: February 4, 2026
Host: Bianna Golodriga (sitting in for Christiane Amanpour)
Guests: Carlos Fernandez de Cossio (Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister), Amos Kharel (Haaretz/Israeli defense analyst), Kay Bailey Hutchison (former US Ambassador to NATO)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Amanpour centers around Cuba’s escalating energy crisis amid dwindling oil supplies, tightening US sanctions, and rapidly rising diplomatic tensions. Bianna Golodriga explores the crisis with Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, digging into Havana’s willingness for US dialogue, alleged foreign interference, Cuba’s internal spending priorities, and the wider humanitarian and political fallout. The show also features a segment with Israeli analyst Amos Kharel on the ceasefire and political maneuvering in Gaza, and a concluding interview with Kay Bailey Hutchison regarding the expiration of the last US-Russian nuclear arms treaty and broader security implications.

---

Main Segment: Cuba’s Oil Crisis and Prospects for US-Cuba Negotiations

Guest: Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister
Timestamps: [02:19] – [22:20]

Crisis Context and US Pressure

• Cuba is running out of oil: At current consumption, it has “15 to 20 days of oil left” ([01:06]; [07:15]).
  • US sanctions have blocked Venezuelan and are now pressuring Mexico to cease oil shipments.
  • The embargo has widespread impact: beyond gas shortages, Cuba’s electricity grid is “on the brink of total collapse.”
• Is dialogue with Washington possible?
  • US President Trump claims Cuba will “come to us, they'll make a deal” ([02:21]).
  • Cuba’s position: Ready for meaningful dialogue with the US.

    “The US Government knows that Cuba is ready and has been ready for a long time to have a meaningful dialogue... At the moment, we've had some exchanges of messages, but we cannot say we have set a bilateral dialogue at this moment.”
    —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([03:12])

Key Discussion Points

Level and Nature of US-Cuba Exchanges

• All US-related Cuba decisions involve “the highest level” of the Cuban government ([03:39]).
• While there have been messages, no structured talks are underway ([03:32]; [19:10]).

Is Cuba’s Position Softening?

• Cuba denies a reversal in policy, despite hostile rhetoric.

  “Our president... said very clearly that Cuba is ready to have a serious and responsible dialogue... [that is] respectful of international law... and sovereignty.”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([04:13])

Response to 'Regime Change' Goals

• De Cossio dismisses US/national security claims:

  “Cuba poses no threat to the United States... The allegations that they used are not truthful.”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([05:02])

• He strongly rejects the notion of negotiating the socialist system itself:

  “We're not ready to discuss our constitutional system, just as the US is not ready to discuss their constitutional system, their political system, their economic reality.”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([08:54])

Humanitarian Crisis & Blockade Impact

• When pressed about humanitarian compromise:

  “It depends on their demands. I cannot claim—I will not share reserves in oil... But... the cooperation that Cuba has provided has helped the security of the southeastern border of the United States...”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([07:45])

• On coping strategies: “Austerity, stoicism, sacrifice... try to overcome reality with the possibility of having very little...” ([06:28]).

Blame for ‘Failed State’ Prospects

• De Cossio blames the US, not internal governance:

  “The reason our country would... become a failed state is not by the doing of our government. It's a... defined aim of the US Government of trying to destroy the livelihood of Cubans.”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([11:24])

Spending Priorities: Hotels vs. Electrical Grid

• Critique: 40% national budget allegedly spent on luxury hotels—not the grid.
• De Cossio: That 40% is “an exaggeration,” argues tourism is a “legitimate industry” vital for foreign revenue ([14:01]).
• On internal allocation debates:

  “It's a very legitimate question... But that is not the reason why Cuba has had a very difficult economic situation. If it were, the US would not be so keen in increasing pressure against Cuba.”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([14:36])

Venezuela, Mexico, and External Relations

• Confirmed: Venezuela no longer supplying oil ([15:09]).
• US is pressuring Mexico to stop shipments; Cuba is maintaining close communication with the Sheinbaum administration ([15:34]).

Allegations of Russia/China's Military Presence

• Strong denial of foreign surveillance activities:

  “There are no foreign operations in Cuba and there's no action... from any foreign country that is hostile against the United States...”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([10:39], [10:52], [10:54])

Political Prisoners

• Amnesty International cites over 1,000 political prisoners; Vatican-mediated releases have reduced that by 500 recently.
• De Cossio sidesteps, turning blame to the US incarceration system, and confirms this is not yet an agenda item in talks ([18:22] – [19:10]).

Cuba’s Involvement in Venezuela

• Reports of Cuban military casualties during Maduro’s fall are acknowledged as the loss of “security detail,” not “troops.”

  “That in no way is equivalent to troops. People know what troops are.”
  —Carlos Fernandez de Cossio ([20:18])

• Confirms Cuba paid for this, calling it a matter of “cooperation,” not a paid-for deployment ([21:28]; [21:45]).

Willingness for Talks

• Despite hardships and pressure, Cuba still “ready to sit down with the US and have a meaningful, serious and responsible dialogue” ([16:50]).
• Proposes areas for cooperation: drugs, regional security, science, health, education, tourism ([08:54]).

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “Cuba... has lasted so long... What Cuba suffers is equivalent to war in terms of economic coercive measures” ([12:28]).
• “The people of Cuba supported that [sending security details to Venezuela] and are proud of that. The majority of Cubans.” ([22:00])
• “Try to measure any country... that would support and be able to sustain what Cuba has done.” ([12:28])

---

Second Segment: Gaza, Israel, and Diplomacy

Guest: Amos Kharel, Haaretz Defense Analyst
Timestamps: [25:53] – [38:55]

Gaza Ceasefire Fragility

• Ongoing clashes between Israeli forces and Hamas; ceasefire described as “very, very delicate” ([25:53]).
• Hostilities continue, including IDF retaliation for Palestinian attacks.
• The biggest barrier to lasting peace: dismantling Hamas’s weapons stockpile.

Netanyahu and Political Calculations

• Netanyahu’s reported preference for the ceasefire process (“Trump plan”) to collapse and reinitiate war with Hamas for political gain ([27:19]).
• All hostages have now been returned, possibly giving Israel freedom to escalate without domestic backlash ([27:41]).

Rafah Crossing Reopening

• Only a symbolic development at this point; very limited civilian crossing ([32:27]).
• The Palestinian Authority now involved, despite Israeli political resistance.
• Hamas theoretically giving up civilian authority, but giving up arms remains a sticking point.

Iran Nuclear Talks

• Potential talks between the US and Iran may not happen, Axios reporting cancellation ([34:13]).
• Israel’s big concern: Guarantees that any deal will confront not just nuclear issues, but also Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy support.

Israeli Preparedness

• Israel has improved missile defense since the last Iran conflict but is not fully safe from attack ([38:20]).

---

Third Segment: Nuclear Arms Treaty Set to Expire

Guest: Kay Bailey Hutchison, ex-US Ambassador to NATO
Timestamps: [41:09] – [55:05]

End of the New START Treaty

• The US-Russia New START treaty—limiting nuclear arsenals—expires this week, ending five decades of arms control ([41:17]).
• Hutchison: The US let it expire over insufficient verification; “a bad treaty is worse than no treaty” ([41:31], [44:01]).

  “If you are going to have a real treaty... you have to have safeguards.”
  —Kay Bailey Hutchison ([42:12])

• Mistrust is high due to perceived consistent Russian violations (especially INF) and Ukrainian war misinformation ([42:07]).

US and NATO Response to Russia

• Calls for tougher US sanctions: “We’re not doing enough. We should be coming down on Russia’s economy right now, today.” ([46:09])
• The importance of maintaining a united NATO and rebuilding trust with European allies ([51:53]).

The Case for Multilateral Nuclear Agreements

• Trump suggests “we'll just do a better agreement” and hints at bringing in “a couple of other players” (i.e., China).
• Hutchison concurs wider, trilateral treaties are preferable ([54:33]).

Notable Quotes

• “He [Putin] will tell an untruth to your face. And we now know that second term. We certainly know that we dealt with them in the first term.” ([48:45])
• “Having a START treaty... with Russia and China would make the world a better place.” ([54:33])

---

Key Timestamps for Reference

• [03:12]: Cuba confirms readiness for dialogue with the US.
• [07:15]: Cuba’s oil reserves discussion.
• [10:39, 10:54]: Denial of Russian/Chinese military installations.
• [14:01]: Discussion of resource allocation to hotels vs. electrical grid.
• [18:22 – 19:10]: Political prisoners controversy.
• [20:18 – 21:47]: Cuba’s military/security involvement in Venezuela clarified.
• [25:53 – 32:27]: Gaza ceasefire and Netanyahu’s strategy with Amos Kharel.
• [41:17 – 55:05]: US-Russia nuclear arms control discussion with Kay Bailey Hutchison.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a rare, direct window into the political brinkmanship surrounding Cuba’s oil crisis and rising humanitarian threat, as Cuban leadership faces mounting US pressure and internal economic calamity. The conversations also illuminate the intersecting, fragile diplomatic fronts—in Gaza and global nuclear arms control—where the balance of power, security, and domestic politics remain sharply contested and uncertain.

Transcript

[Bianna Golodriga]

What is it about Australia that just hits different? Australia is where we shared our first.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Kiss, where we fell in love.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

That was 18 years ago now.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And this is what, your fourth trip back.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Australia has this incredible way of drawing you back.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The ocean, the people, the oysters. So good, so briny and delicious. And the possibility of exploring something new. Learn more about Zach and Laura's [e-mail] or and start planning the vacation of a lifetime. Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

It's a failed nation now, and they're not getting any money from Venezuela, and they're not getting any money from anywhere.

[Bianna Golodriga]

As Washington suffocates Cuba's economy, are officials there ready for dialogue with the U.S. cuba's deputy minister of foreign affairs joins us from Havana. Then more bloodshed overnight in Gaza, with a shaky ceasefire still in effect. We talk war and peace with Israeli journalist Amos Kharel.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

And I think a bad treaty is worse than no treaty.

[Bianna Golodriga]

With the last US Russian nuclear treaty about to expire, former NATO Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison tells Walter Isaacson why America may be better off without it. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodriga, New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Cuba has only 15 to 20 days of oil left at current levels of demand. That's according to the Financial Times. With the US Blocking deliveries from Venezuela, a key supplier, and pressuring Mexico to cancel shipments while also threatening new tariffs on any country that sells oil to Havana, the Trump administration is choking off the Cuban economy one gas tank at a time. Now, oil doesn't just drive Cuba's transportation infrastructure. It also powers an electricity system on the brink of total collapse. But could talks with Washington give Cuba an off ramp? Donald Trump thinks so.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

I think they probably would come to.

[Walter Isaacson]

Us and want to make a deal so Cuba would be free again. They'll come to us. They'll make a deal.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

But Cuba, really, they've got a problem.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Carlos Fernandez de Cossio is Cuba's deputy foreign minister and its top diplomat for US affairs. And he says Havana is even now exchanging messages with Washington and is ready for meaningful dialogue. Carlos Fernandez DiCosio, welcome to the program. So it appears that you are confirming what we heard from President Trump when he said that his administration is talking to the highest people in your government. He also says that he expects a deal. To be clear, is your government currently working or currently looking at a proposal or demand actually from the United States?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

The US Government knows that Cuba is ready and has been ready for a long time to have a meaningful dialogue with the US Government to deal with our bilateral issues. At the moment, we've had some exchanges of messages, but we cannot say we have set a bilateral dialogue at this moment.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Are these communications to quote the President, at the highest level?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Most things in Cuba dealing with the United States are linked to the highest level. It's a large issue for us. So there's no decision, no action taken that doesn't involve the high level of government in Cuba.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So here you are saying that Cuba is open to meaningful dialogue. It seems like a complete 180 from what your president was saying just last week, noting that measures taken by Washington are, quote, criminal and genocidal in nature. Now you're ready to talk. What has changed is the pressure from the United States working.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

The statement from our president, it was on January 9th, I believe he was calling the actions taken by the United States as they are. And he also said very clearly that Cuba is ready to have a serious and responsible dialogue with the United States that is respectful of international law and of course respectful of our international, of our national prerogatives and sovereignty. There's no change in what he said.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The President of the United States as well as the secretary here, Marco Rubio, have said that their goal, Marco Rubio has said this explicitly would be regime change at some point. How do you respond to that demand?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Well, the first thing to remember is that on the Measure announced on January 29, they claim that Cuba is an emergency to the US because we pose a threat to the United States. Cuba poses no threat to the United States. It is not aggressive against the United States. It's not hostile. It doesn't harbor terrorism nor sponsors terrorism. There are no foreign military bases in Cuba, contrary to what is alleged, with the exception of the one existing in Guantanamo, the US Base. Cuba has no traffic in drugs or illegal drugs that would harm the United States, nor there's organizing crime in Cuba, nor organized crime uses Cuba as a platform against the United States. So the allegations that they used are not truthful. Now the Secretary of State has said that he wants regime change and it's been his policy and the policy of many anti Cuban politicians in the United States for a long time. I don't know what the reasoning today of the government is when they speak of talking with Cuba because of course, our plan and our idea and our objectives would never be to change the government. What we have in Cuba, the system or economic or political system that we have in Cuba.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So what are you going to do to stop the United States if that is their ultimate goal?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

They are attempting to choke Cuba economically as they have been trying to do for the past over six decades. I would say at this moment they are threatening countries with tariffs to harm them if they, in use of their national prerogatives, they export fuel to Cuba that will pose a great harm to Cuba. It is the aim to cause as much harm as possible to the people of Cuba. We have to to some extent take a look at our plans, how we use a great quote of austerity, stoicism, sacrifice, and try to overcome reality with the possibility of having very little, a lot of limitations, I would say, in the possibility of importing fuel.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, blackouts are a daily occurrence across the country as we speak. How much oil does Cuba have stockpiled at this point? Is the Financial Times report correct that you are just 15 to 20 days away from a complete blackout? And why would you not try to, at least for the safety and for humanitarian reasons of your own citizens, try to at least compromise with the United States in their demand?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

It depends on their demands. I cannot claim I will not share reserves in oil as it's not something that we use publicly. I don't know which are the sources of the financial time, but depending on the claims of the United States, the US Wants cooperation in fighting the trafficking in drugs. Cuba can help if the US and we've been helping in the past, if the US Wants cooperation as a neighboring country. But you said Cuba is not the majority of Americans.

[Bianna Golodriga]

You said Cuba's not trafficking drugs. So how would you help the United States?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Well, we've been helping in the past and we can continue to help with traffic that goes within the region. And a lot of the contribution and the cooperation that Cuba has provided has helped the security of the southeastern border of the United States, from drug going from South America to North America and attempts to use Cuba's waters or. Or Cuba's air.

[Bianna Golodriga]

What is the red line that Cuba will not cross to get more oil flowing into the country?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

I think it would be similar to the ones that the US Has. We're not ready to discuss our constitutional system, as we suppose the US Is not ready to discuss their constitutional system, their political system, their economic reality. And as a sovereign nation, we have the same believe that the U.S. but there are many other issues that we can discuss that can be useful for both countries and that could help even the countries in the region in several areas, the ones I raised, but also in science, also in health Also in education, but also Cuba is in a process of economic transformation that has had many difficulties precisely because of the pressures and the economic warfare coming from the United States. I'm sure that if we sit down and if the US Were ready to ease the very illegitimate pressure it puts on Cuba, we could evolve in a way so that Americans could travel to Cuba, which today is prohibited by their government, could do business in Cuba, which today is prohibited by their government, could visit Cuba, could do tourism in Cuba, which today is prohibited by their government.

[Bianna Golodriga]

You mention and describe as illegitimate the US rationale for the blockade. The Trump administration administration's January 29th executive order specifically cites Cuba hosting hostile countries, that being Russia and China as the reason for this new blockade. You have said that there are no hostile actors in the country. So I'm asking you to confirm again, to be precise, are there any Russian intelligence operators or operations or the same with Chinese security operations inside of Cuba? Right now.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

There are no foreign operations in Cuba and there's no action or activity in Cuba from any foreign country that is hostile against the United States or that can harm the United States.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So no foreign surveillance facilities.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

What we host in Cuba. What we host in Cuba are embassies of these countries, as the U.S. hosts embassies of those countries.

[Amos Kharel]

The.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

The U.S. hosts business from those countries, we host business from those countries.

[Bianna Golodriga]

All right. Well, if no deal is reached in the next 30 days, let's say, depending on how much oil you have on reserve and blackouts intensify, are you willing to be held accountable to your own citizens as to why their country has turned into a failed state?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

But the reason our country would eventually or hypothetically become a failed state is not by the doing of our government. It's a precise and defined aim of the US Government of trying to destroy the livelihood of Cubans. If any country were to try to destroy or a set of countries the livelihood of Americans, would the responsibility be of the US Government, or the responsibility would be of those that want to be hostile to the US and want to harm the people of the United states states.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Before January 3rd, and that is the day of the operation where the United States seized Maduro from Venezuela. The Cuban economy was in its worst state since the early 1990s. You have suffering from massive stagflation. Real world inflation is estimated to be about 70% by the end of this year. You've had chronic blackouts for many, many years. So how is this all the fault of the United States policies and none of yours?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

If you look at U.S. legislation. If you look at what politicians in the United States say, you'd be sure that would happen. Politicians in the United States have been betting since the 1960s that their coercive economic measures against Cuba will make the country collapse. Many politicians, officials from the State Department, officials in the White House, have said that for years. It's a miracle, I would say, for them, that Cuba has lasted so long. It has been the aim of the United States, by their own doing, in believing that their actions can make Cuba collapse. So blaming the Cuban government for something that the US with its powerful capacity and influence around the world, blaming the Cuban government for the actions that they do is quite responsible. Try to measure any country, any country that would support and be able to sustain what Cuba has done. Many countries around the world were on the brink of crisis just because the US Government said that it would raise or put in some tariffs. What Cuba suffers is equivalent to war in terms of economic coercive measures. And of course, that is the full responsibility of the United States.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So given the pressure there and the stresses applied by sanctions, why would your government make the decision then to spend about 40 of its national budget on luxury hotels in the last two years, while the electric grid, which is almost completely in collapse now received less than 3% of that same investment?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

40% is an exaggeration. I don't know where you get your figures, but tourism is a very legitimate industry that provides income to our country, that provides for health care, education, infrastructure. It's an important industry in our country. So it's not luxury for a few amount of people to get into the hotels is a source of income, a very important source of income for Cuba and for many countries around the world. And it's a legitimate industry.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Is it a legitimate question to ask where your government is deciding to allocate the limited resources it has to provide for its people?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

It's a very legitimate question. And you could ask, and some people could think you could use it in building roads. Some could say that we could go back and produce sugarcane and export sugar again, as we did for 200 years. But it's a legitimate industry. So you could ask that, you could allocate 15% or 30%, in other words. But that is not the reason why Cuba has had a very difficult economic situation. If it were, the US would not be so keen in continuing to increase pressure against Cuba.

[Bianna Golodriga]

We've now seen that Venezuela is basically off the grid in terms of supplying oil to your country. It had been the number one supplier, and there's now pressure on Mexico to do the same. What communication are you in now with the Sheinbaum government? As you know that she is speaking directly with the Trump administration on providing any sort of oil to your country.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

We're communicating with many governments, and the Mexican government is a very close government to ours as a country that historically been very close to Cuba. What is illegitimate is for the US to deprive Cuba from something as precious as fuel and so necessary for the life of any country. What is illegitimate is for it to pressure a country so that it and threatening them if they export their products to the country of their choosing. That is absolutely unfair and illegitimate.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And that is a question that's been raised, the humanitarian question that's been raised in the fallout of completely choking off the country from gas reserves, et cetera, and oil. And President Trump responded by saying that he thinks he can work a deal out. That is similar language that we heard from President Trump prior to his seizing of Nicolas Maduro and now putting his number two, Delsey Rodriguez place and in power. So what is to stop or prevent that same type of chain of events from happening in Cuba? How do you know that the United States is not currently working or speaking with somebody in your government to take out your leadership and put them in place?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

They've been trying to do that for a long time. To speak of Cubans of different types, the Cuban government is united. It's united behind its president, and it's got the support of the majority of the population. So they could try to do that. I cannot doubt if they try to do it. They've been attempting to do it in Cuba and in many parts of the world. Again, it's also something very illegitimate. But as I said at the beginning, we are ready to sit down with the US and have a meaningful, serious and responsible dialogue. And let's look at our differences, the real differences. What are the issues of Cuba that bother Americans? What are the issues of Cuba that truly might be thought of causing harm to the majority of American citizens, to harm their standard of living, their security, their peaceful, their neighborhoods? What real issues do harm them? And what issues can be there that can allow the US to work with Cuba, to do business in Cuba, that can be profitable, to work with Cuba together for peace and tranquility in our region? What stops them from doing that? And I think that would be a very broad agenda between the two countries.

[Bianna Golodriga]

One of those issues perhaps our political prisoners. Amnesty internationals insist that over 1000 political prisoners are currently behind bars. We know that your president last month released about 500 of them following a request from the Vatican. Can Cuba commit to releasing the 1000 that Amnesty International say remain behind bars?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

I don't know if the US Government wants to discuss prisoners with us because the US has many more prisoners relatively and absolutely than we do. Has more prisoners comparatively to the.

[Bianna Golodriga]

I'm talking about political. I'm not talking about prisoners.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

I don't know if they want to discuss about prisoners.

[Bianna Golodriga]

I'm not talking about political prisoners.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

I include people in the United States that are incarcerated without trial for years, Thousands and thousands. And that is political when you do that. And I'm talking about that too. Does the US Want to talk about that too, with Cuba?

[Bianna Golodriga]

So you're saying that we're raising 1,000. So has it been raised?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Pardon?

[Bianna Golodriga]

Has it been raised already? Has the issue over political prisoners been raised in the current conversations with the US Government?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

No, we haven't spoke. We haven't had a dialogue. We haven't had a dialogue yet.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So what is the, what is the motive? What is the mode of communication that's currently open now?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

I'm not ready to speak about that. We've had just exchanges of messages.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Okay, so. But nothing has been mentioned about political prisoners is the point you're making.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Correct?

[Bianna Golodriga]

I do want to ask about the chain of events following the seizure of Maduro in Venezuela along with his wife, because we, that there were scores of Cuban military officers that were killed protecting Maduro. It had been Cuba's public statement that there had been no military personnel protecting Venezuelan leadership for a number of years. And come to find out there were. And you had a very high profile memorial and we saw the funerals that you hosted for all of them. So why lie about something that you then made so public?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

To say that we're lying is a strong word. In 2018, 2019 and 2020 when this was raised, we're very clear. We have no troops in Venezuela. We do not participate in military operations in Venezuela. That was what we said consistently. What was in Venezuela. And the officers that, as you claimed, lost their lives. There were security detail, personal security detail for the president of Venezuela. That in no way is equivalent to troops. People know what troops are. There was no regiment, there was no battalion. There were not heavy machinery in terms of military of Cuba in Venezuela. It was simply a security detail for the president of Venezuela. That is not troops equivalent in any measure anyway. So it's wrong to say that we were lying.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Who was paying for that security? The Maduro government.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Pardon.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The Maduro regime was paying The Maduro regime was paying for that security?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

No, they were not paying for it. No payment for the security.

[Bianna Golodriga]

So where did that money come from? Cooperation.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Cooperation, cooperation. Which money?

[Bianna Golodriga]

It costs money to send troops to another country, money that you say you don't have.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Cuba. Cuba paid for that.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Cuba pay our citizens, allocates its resources. How do you account to your own citizens? That that's where you allocate your resources instead of providing stable electricity for them.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

To pay the salary of 30, 40 people in another country. Compare that to what the US pays in military expenditure. And yet it has poor people in the richest country in the world. Why would that be wrong? And the people of Cuba supported that and are proud of that. The majority of Cubans.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Okay, well, we'll have to get them to answer that question at some point as well. We do appreciate the time today. Carlos Fernandez DiCosio, thank you. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Thank you.

[Bianna Golodriga]

All right. And coming up later in the program, deadly strikes continue in Gaza despite the ceasefire. Haaretz analyst Amos Kharo joins us to explain the stakes for the whole region. What is it about Australia that just hits different? Australia is where we shared our first.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Kiss, where we fell in love.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

That was 18 years ago now.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And this is what, your fourth trip back.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Australia has this incredible way of drawing you back.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The ocean, the people, the oysters so briny and delicious and the possibility of exploring something new. Learn more about Zach and Laura's [e-mail] and start planning the vacation of a lifetime. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast Terms of Service, Americans bet around $150 billion in total on sports in 2024. And that means for individual bettors, there can be serious money on the line, too. I wanted to dig into how these apps work and their impact on users. And that's why I invited Harry Levant into the studio. Harry is a gambling counselor and he serves as director of gambling policy with the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

With online gambling and apps immediately accessible on your phone, we have normalized and now we deliver a known addictive product at light speed in partnership between the gambling industry, the sports leagues, media and the tech companies.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Listen to CNN's terms of service wherever you get your podcasts. Now, in other diplomatic news, Iran has conditionally agreed to nuclear talks with the United States. The foreign minister, Abbas Arakchi will meet special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner in Oman, though Axios is reporting that those talks could now be in jeopardy. On Tuesday, Witkoff met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who warned him that Iran should not be trusted. As for the ceasefire In Gaza, 21 Palestinians, including at least three children, were killed by Israeli artillery shelling after the Israeli military says a soldier was severely injured by gunfire early Wednesday morning. And efforts to advance to the next phase of the ceasefire are painstakingly slow. The Rafah closing reopened partially on Monday after Israel closed it nearly two years ago. To discuss all of this, Amos Kharel, senior defense analyst for Aretz, and he joins us from outside of Tel Aviv. Amos, it has been a while. It is good to see you. We will get to the Iran talks in just a moment, whether or not they are still on. But I do want to ask you about the latest in Gaza now with the ceasefire and the reopening of the Rafah crossing. A big symbolic moment, but we know the numbers of people actually crossing over are very scarce, just trickling in both from the Egyptian side and Israeli. This, in addition to the numbers, as we noted, of people killed over the weekend in Gaza, raises the question of where the ceasefire stands at this point. How delicate is it?

[Amos Kharel]

The situation remains very, very delicate. The president announced moving to stage two of his plan about three weeks ago, and this is now being gradually implemented. And yet there are many obstacles on the ground and mostly everyday friction between Israeli forces and Hamas terrorists on what is known as the Yellow line separating the Israel controlled areas and Hamas controlled areas along the Strip. So there was an incident yesterday evening in which an Israeli company commander was injured, severely injured by Palestinian gunfire. Israel retaliated by trying to assassinate a few commanders in these organizations. One brigade commander from the Islamic Jihad, one company commander who was involved in the October 7th Mass from Hamas. As you said, there were many casualties on the Palestinian side. This is very volatile right now. And even if the United States manages to get things under control, there remain many problems looking at the future, first and foremost, the question of dismantling Hamas weapons. This is the biggest obstacle to reaching any kind of attempt to organize the situation and to calm down the frictions between Israel and Hamas.

[Bianna Golodriga]

You also write that it is Prime Minister Netanyahu's quiet hope that phase two never really turns into anything and manifests instead. Prime Minister Netanyahu, according to your reporting, would like to see it collapse. Is this something that the White House, do you think is turning a blind eye to?

[Amos Kharel]

I think this is quite clear. Netanyahu is not saying the silent part loud yet, but anybody who's been following this carefully has noticed that the Israelis are very, very doubtful about the outcome of the Trump plan when it comes to Hamas. Again, the main obstacle being the Hamas weapons. And Netanyahu is assuming that Trump would try to push this forward, but that at one point or another, things would break down with Hamas. And in that case, I think that for political, domestic reasons as well, Netanyahu would rather have a renewal of the war against Hamas. This hasn't gone down the way the Prime Minister planned this or the way the Prime Minister promised to his voters, his supporters. He promised for almost two years a final and decisive victory over Hamas. This is not what happened in Gaza. And if hostilities between Hamas and Israel resume in a major way, then finally, perhaps Netanyahu would have his chance to fulfill his promise and defeat Hamas. And of course, if this does happen, it will happen without the shadow of the fate of the Israeli hostages, because all Israeli hostages were returned to Israel with the Trump deal in mid October last year. And even the last body of an Israeli hostage was retrieved by the IDF a week ago. So this is a very different situation than the one we've had in the past.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah, a different situation, but you're also in an election year and you're coming at a time where once again, classic Netanyahu would like to take credit for everything that goes right and nothing that goes wrong. And so he's taken credit recently for bringing all of the hostages home, noting that not all of these hostages came to Gaza as murdered hostages. There were hostages that were brought to Gaza alive and that were killed either at the hands of Hamas or perhaps by shelling from the idf. And a number of Israeli officials have said for many months prior to the cease fire that a deal could have been reached to bring them home. So that notwithstanding, would the Prime Minister then benefit from going back into Gaza? I just mean from a popularity standpoint. Is the Israeli public ready for renewed fighting in Gaza to see more soldiers die, to see the numbers and the images from Gaza of more civilians dying?

[Amos Kharel]

The facts you mentioned are absolutely true. Out of 251 hostages, more than 80 came back Israeli bodies coming back from Gaza. And about half of those were killed while they were in Gaza, either by IDF shelling or murdered by Hamas. This is not a great achievement for Netanyahu. And typically Netanyahu would celebrate his achievements while ignoring his responsibility to what has failed. It's a very problematic issue and an emotional issue for him and for the Israeli voters. But I don't think that he can leave things as they are if Trump succeeds and actually continues with his plan. And there are some achievements there. Hamas is dismantled, there's a certain amount of recovery for the Gaza Strip. Things calm down, then Netanyahu could claim another victory. But if not, I think that most of the Israeli public, in the long run, although they doubt his intentions and their weary of what could happen, they're also worried of the possibility of Hamas remaining there. If Hamas remains in control of 50%, more or less, of the Gaza Strip, if Hamas is still there with its jihadist ideology, then even people from the center, and even some on the Israeli left, would not be happy about that. The question, of course, is, can Netanyahu actually deliver anything? Can he actually do what he failed to do for so long? But I think he believes he can, especially as he doesn't need to worry about the hostages anymore.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Well, Hamas, as you note, remains armed, financed, embedded. You talk about battalion leaders there. I mean, it does sound like they're starting to reconstitute at this point. And the opposite of disarming, which had been one of the demands and ultimatums by all sides here. At the same time, as I noted, the Rafah crossing has slowly reopened. What is the sustainability of that? Obviously, a big symbolic move, but in terms of civilians actually being able to cross the border and get the medical aid that they need and for aid to go in, what's the future there?

[Amos Kharel]

So it's much more symbolic than anything else. There are just a few hundred people traveling from side to side every day. It's really not really significant for the time being. But, yes, it does mean symbolically that Gaza Strip is open to some extent to the world. And it's also very different, again, than what Netanyahu has promised the Israeli public. And of course, now he's taking a stand against certain involvement of the Palestinian Authority. But we have to admit the truth. It is actually the Palestinian Authority which is helping to operate the Rafah crossing in the long run. Again, this has to do with what happens with Hamas. Hamas has agreed, according to the Trump plan, to give up its civilian responsibility to Gaza. We'll have to see if this actually materialized. But other than that, whenever it comes to a discussion of its weapons, all we hear are vague promises about what is known as their heavy or more strategic weapons, their remaining rockets, launches, rocket launchers, and so on. What Israel is saying is that this isn't enough, that Hamas needs to give up also its Kalachnikovs, its AK47s, because this is what. This is the. These are the weapons that are actually used to controlling Gaza and to intimidate anybody else on the Palestinian side. So this is a crucial issue from an Israeli perspective. The Israelis have made that clear when they talked to the people around Trump. But it remains to be seen how insistent the Americans would be over that, or if the president would rather paint an optimistic picture about what's going on and ignore these details.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Though from every expert we've spoken to, it did seem like the main focus of Steve Witkoff's visit to Israel this week was primarily that of Iran and not of Gaza. And this says reports are coming in Amos, that perhaps these talks now may be off. CNN has not confirmed it, but Axios is reporting that they may well indeed not happen in Oman on Friday. The United States, from all reporting, is saying that beyond just ending its nuclear program, Iran must up its ballistic missiles program as well as any sort of aid it provides its proxies. You have described any of these talks as a last chance before a collision course. How likely do you think we are going to see a collision course?

[Amos Kharel]

I think it's more likely, I wouldn't bet on it, that the final decision would be made by President Trump. And we know that it's not worthwhile to gamble on what the president would do. And he likes to keep all options on the table. He likes to keep those matters as vague as possible until he makes the final decision. However, the fact that they were about to meet Witkoff and Al Aqchi, the Iranian foreign minister, in Istanbul, then it was moved to Oman. And then, according to our colleague Barack Ravid's report on Axios, it's been cancelled about an hour ago. If we look at the way things have happened in the recent hours, it doesn't seem likely that this summit would be held. Perhaps there will be more attempts for negotiations. This could be part of the messages or signs being sent from one side to another. And yet what I hear from the Israeli officials is that they're rather doubtful whether an agreement could be reached. Netanyahu and the chiefs of Mossad and the IDF have emphasized to the American envoy Witkoff yesterday in their meetings at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv was that any kind of agreement could not deal only with the nuclear issue, but also with Iran's threats towards the region. Whether it's a ballistic missile program or its support of proxy forces around the Middle east, all of these issues are seen by Israel as crucial. And again, it's no secret that Israel is not rooting for an agreement with Iran. The paradox here being that Trump has already promised the Iranian People that help was on the way after the massacre that happened all over Iran in the first two weeks of this January. And if, if in fact, the price the Iranian regime would have to pay would be to sign a new nuclear deal, that wouldn't be enough for the Iranian people and to all of those people who lost their loved ones during the Iranian protest. So in fact, what could materialize if a deal is successful is that Iran would give up some of its nuclear capabilities and would get an American response, which would include lifting the sanctions. This would mean that the regime would actually. This is not what the Iranian people want and evidently it's not what the Israeli government is. This is not what they suggest the Americans would do. So Netanyahu would hope for Trump to decide to attack, but Israel is watching this for the time being from the sidelines. It knows that it could be serious. Implications for us as well. Iran has already threatened to bomb Tel Aviv, but we'll have to wait and see what the final decision made by the President is.

[Bianna Golodriga]

Yeah, and the final 30 seconds here, it's pretty hard to say that the president could call a nuclear deal a victory given that just six months ago he said that because of the US Bombing, Iran's nuclear program was completely obliterated. But quickly, Amos, is Israel prepared for attacks from Iran? Because the last time over the 12 day war, there were casualties.

[Amos Kharel]

Of course there were casualties. There were 30 Israeli civilians who were killed by ballistic missiles sent from Iran. And yet I think Israel has quite improved since then. It's not fully protected. This could be dangerous for the home front. But there have been some improvements made in Israel's defense strategy and its operations. And also what we have to consider is the fact that Iran itself is not protected neither from American attacks or Israeli strikes. Iran has lost all of its anti aircraft capabilities, which is something quite significant.

[Bianna Golodriga]

All right, Amos, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you so much for the time. Good to see you.

[Amos Kharel]

Thank you for having me.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And still to come for us after the break, with the U. S. Russia nuclear weapons treaty set to expire, what does this mean for global security? We'll hear from Kay Bailey Hutchison, former U.S. ambassador to NATO.

[Amos Kharel]

Foreign.

[Walter Isaacson]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

The problem is if I ask the.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Next 100 people I'm going to meet.

[Walter Isaacson]

Today, how do you get cavities?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

They're all going to tell me.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Of course, if you don't brush your.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Teeth and eat a lot of sugar.

[Amos Kharel]

Your mouth is more Complex.

[Walter Isaacson]

That's Dr. Kami Haas.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

He is a dentist.

[Walter Isaacson]

He's an orthodontist specialist. He's also author of the book called if youf Mouth Could Talk An In Depth Guide to Oral Health and Its Impact on youn Entire Life. We're going to talk about Dr. Haas approach to oral health, what he recommends as the optimal routine to fight cavities and to keep your entire mouth in tip top shape. We're also going to dive into the fluoride debate. Listen to Chasing Life streaming now wherever you get your podcasts.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Hey, it's Michael Smerconish. If you missed me on cnn, check out my podcast what's Reasonable in these particular circumstances. That's the standard by which we should all evaluate what we're watching on a loop from Minneapolis, not what we're being told we're seeing by a politician or a pundit, including me.

[Amos Kharel]

Do you have an open or closed.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Mind as to the guilt or innocence.

[Amos Kharel]

Of the Minnesota ice, Agent Smerkanish?

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

[Bianna Golodriga]

On Thursday, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia is set to expire. The end of New Start marks the first time in more than five decades that Washington and Moscow have no formal limits on their nuclear arsenals. So what does that mean for global security and for the already strained U. S Russia relations? Walter Isaacson speaks with Kay Bailey Hutchison, former US Ambassador to NATO, about what's at stake.

[Walter Isaacson]

Thank you. Bianna and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, welcome to the show.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Thank you, Walter. Great to be with you.

[Walter Isaacson]

This week the last nuclear arms control pact between the United States and Russia called New Start is expiring. Tell me what it was about and why are we letting it expire?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Well, it's because really there was no verification. There was no, not enough verification in the treaty that the Americans felt comfortable with. And there's been a negotiation going on for months to try to get a better verification. And I think that was not acceptable. And I think it is important that it's more important that we have the verification, I think, than to have a treaty.

[Walter Isaacson]

Wait a minute. Without the treaty we won't have any verification, right?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Well, but Russia has shown how untrustworthy it is, Walter. I mean look at what they say about what they're doing in Ukraine. They act like Ukraine started this war. Are you kidding? I mean, I don't think verification would. I think you have to have safeguards if you are going to have a real treaty. And you know, the, when I was at NATO, really, Russia had been violating the INF treaty for years.

[Walter Isaacson]

I mean, the intermediate nuclear force, one that was weapons in Europe.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Yeah, the intermediate. And they had been violating it. They kept denying that they were violating it. And we had pictures. We had pictures of the serial number that was Russian. And we went through both Republican and Democratic administrations trying to keep that going. But finally we had to withdraw from the INF treaty because we had to have the. The defense against what they were building that they said they weren't building. So I. I'm not going to really question that. We don't have an agreement as much as I would rather have an agreement that was verifiable.

[Walter Isaacson]

Yeah, you raised the Ronald Reagan slogan of trust but verify, and that's not the case. But one of the things that Reagan believed when he did it with Gorbachev, back when I was covering strategic arms reduction talks, was he felt that the treaty itself wasn't the most important thing. The talks, the process, the negotiations actually were helpful. Do you agree with that?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

I think certainly, yes. The negotiation is where you see what the problems are. You see what their most important priority is. And yes, I think that is certainly a valid issue. But we have also been in talks with Russia for years, for months, if not years, about all these treaties. INF start New start trying to get this done right. And again, I think a bad treaty is worse than no treaty. And we just have to have the intelligence and we have to have our own protections, our own defense, so that whatever we know their priorities are, which is aggression. I mean, Walter, when I was at NATO, and I've talked to Matt Whitaker, who's still there, Russia wants to recreate the Soviet Union. That is Putin's goal here. That's why he has invaded countries that are not NATO countries, like Georgia and Ukraine. And he is trying to take one step, see what we will do. And if we don't really retaliate or. Or stand our ground, he keeps going. And that, frankly, that's what happened with Crimea. He took Crimea in 2014, and we sort of complained about it, said it was terrible, and then walked away. Didn't really stand up and say, leave Crimea. So they have militarized Crimea and as at the same time violating the INF treaty. And so you have to sit there and say, how much longer are we going to watch this happen and not do enough to deter Russia's invasions?

[Walter Isaacson]

Well, let me ask you that question. Are we doing enough to deter Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

No, we're not. We're not doing enough. We should be coming down on Russia's economy right now, now, today or tomorrow, I think we're going to see that India has stopped, has said they're going to stop buying oil from Russia. That's huge because really the countries that have been buying oil from Russia, China and India are fueling and including some in Europe because they don't have other capabilities. But that's going to start really hurting Russia's ability to do what he's doing in Ukraine. And you know, Walter, that the United States Senate has over 80 votes commitments to hunkering down on the real embargoes against country and terrorists against countries that would be continuing to buy from Russia. And so far that bill hasn't gotten to the President. He said he would sign it. And I think passing that bill out of the Senate, taking it to the House, having the president sign it so that you have stronger economic sanctions against the countries that are fueling what Russia is doing in Ukraine, which is it's war crimes.

[Walter Isaacson]

Now tell me what about, about Trump's relationship with President Putin.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

I think, I think the President has tried to stop this war. And I, and I think, I think there have been a lot of talks we've seen that. I don't know why we haven't come down harder on Putin. I don't know why President Trump hasn't, especially after that terrible meeting in Alaska in which Putin was continuing to bomb Ukraine while he was, quote, talking about a ceasefire. He was bombing as he was coming over to meet in our country with our president.

[Walter Isaacson]

During President Trump's first term, you were his ambassador to NATO and there were discussions of the new START treaty that started up back then and for a while was extended. Tell me about Trump's relation to Russia during the first term when you were an ambassador to NATO and how it's different this term.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Well, we did the whole charade with Russia in the first term on the INF treaty and we just held our ground and we said we proved that Russia was violating. They kept denying it. They denied it all the way. And what the Europeans ask us to hold off while they explain to their country, their countries, their populace, that Russia was violating and that it put us in jeopardy not to have the defensive weapons. And we gave them 60 days and they then went to their populace and America withdrew and NATO passed a resolution approving that and saying, yes, that was the right thing to do. But you just have to be very clear eyed about Putin. He will tell an untruth to your face. And we now know that second term. We certainly know that we dealt with them in the first term. We had to do what was required under the treaty, which is to not have a defensive weapon. We withdrew from the treaty, honorably, kept all of the requirements of the treaty because Russia was violating and never ever admitted that they had been violating it. But they were putting those missiles right on the edge of, of Crimea so that they would be in range of Europe. So I think we now are more clear eyed. I think that President Trump has been critical somewhat of President Putin, but I think now is the time to come down and especially with India saying they're not going to buy Russian oil, China still is. And I think it's time to ramp up the pressure on the economy of Russia, which is killing people as we speak. They are killing innocent civilians, they're destroying the infrastructure. And it's just unacceptable for the Europeans and Americans in NATO to keep our security umbrella over our populations when we're dealing with Vladimir Putin, who doesn't, who has no grain of truth or honor on his side.

[Walter Isaacson]

Well, let me talk about two things that are coming together right now. The end of the Strategic Arms Treaty, this new START treaty, and secondly, NATO countries feeling that they no longer have absolute unconditional support of the United States. Do you think those two forces together might cause a country like Germany to say now we need nuclear weapons?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Well, that's a pretty stark contrast, I think. I do think we will rebuild the trust with Europeans. And I, I do think that the, the outcry about Greenland was something that the President saw and surely begins to see that we, that the Europeans are never going to be like us. They're never going to assess a risk and begin to immediately deter that risk and have a strategy to do it. That's America. And, but we are much stronger with our European allies agreeing together on what the strategy would be. I went through this when we determined that China was the adversary against our countries in the future. The Europeans were concerned about their trade relationships with China because it's very important for their economies. But we work together on beginning to bring the Asia Pacific countries into the summits that we have in NATO. So Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea are now part of the NATO summits because we do want to have a united front against Chinese aggression, which they have certainly proven in those other countries. And so we were building a strong alliance in that way, and NATO still is. But the, the trust factor with Europeans is real. I have certainly been talking to my European counterparts and it's there. And I think we can rebuild because we do have a strong historic base. And we know that if we are going to face other major adversaries, Russia and China, that we need to have a united front and that everyone produces something. They don't produce as much as we do, but they produce a lot. And we need to have that alliance strong.

[Walter Isaacson]

In an interview with the New York Times, when he was asked about the new START treaty expiring, President Trump said, and I quote, if it expires, it expires. We'll just do a better agreement. He later added in the interview, you probably want to get a couple of other players involved also. What do you mean by that and do you agree?

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Well, for sure, because any kind of limitation we have on nuclear arms that would be verifiable would be very good. China, we tried to put China into it. That may be the point the president's trying to make. We tried to put China into it when we started the negotiations, when I was still at NATO. And having a START treaty with a limitation on nuclear weapons capabilities with both Russia and China would make the world a better place.

[Walter Isaacson]

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchinson, thank you for joining us again.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Thank you, Walter.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And finally, a win for the books. At the Westminster Kennel Club Dog show In New York, four year old Doberman pinscher Penny beat out 2,499 of the dogs for the top prize. The last time a Doberman won the best in show award was 37 years ago and that winner was also trained by Penny's handler, Andy Linton. Last night's triumph was extra special for Linton, who struggles with Parkinson's disease and has said his career may be coming to an end. As their prestigious competition concluded its 150th edition, Judge Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge David Fitzpatrick confidently declared that the finalist, quote, will go down in history and she surely will. Congrats to Penny. And that is it for us for today. Thanks so much for watching and goodbye from New York. What is it about Australia that just hits different? Australia is where we shared our first.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Kiss, where we fell in love.

[Carlos Fernandez de Cossio]

That was 18 years ago now.

[Bianna Golodriga]

And this is what your fourth trip back.

[Kay Bailey Hutchison]

Australia has this incredible way of drawing you back.

[Bianna Golodriga]

The ocean, the people, the oysters, so good, so briny and delicious. And the possibility of exploring something new. Learn more about Zach and Laura's [e-mail] and start planning the vacation of a.

[Walter Isaacson]

Lifetime news cycle making your head spin. The have I GOT News for you crew is here to help with a comic take on the week's headlines. New episodes Saturdays at 9 on CNN. And next day on the CNN app.