Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:04]
Christiane Amanpour
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. President Trump promised to end America's forever wars, but can he find a way out of the Iran war of choice? I speak to Ben Rhodes, former Obama deputy national security advisor.
- [00:20]
Ben Rhodes
Plus, we are deepening our operation in Lebanon.
- [00:24]
Oliver McTernan
The IDF is operating with large forces
- [00:26]
Ben Rhodes
on the ground and is taking control
- [00:28]
Christiane Amanpour
of strategic areas as Israel presses ahead in Lebanon. Gaza remains devastated and violence spikes in the West Bank. Is there any path to peace? Conflict resolution expert Oliver McTernan joins me.
- [00:41]
Eitha El Khatadni
Also ahead, these remittances are a huge lifeline for immigrant communities.
- [00:45]
Christiane Amanpour
Republicans push to tax money sent abroad by non citizens that could hit Haiti particularly hard. Hari Srinivasan speaks to the editor in chief of Documented about what it might mean for Haitian families. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christian Amanpour in London. As negotiations drag on between Washington and Tehran, a draft from framework for a possible agreement is beginning to emerge. Iranian state media reports that the proposal under discussion would see the US Lift its blockade of Iranian ports and pull American military forces back from Iran's vicinity, while Tehran would restore commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to pre war levels within a month. The White House has denied that report. The on again, off again optimism means that oil markets remain jittery. The the economic shock is still rippling around the world and many Americans remain skeptical of another war of choice in the Middle East. So what is the best way to deal with monumental mistrust between the two sides that's actually been growing for decades? President Obama's landmark Cairo speech to the Muslim world in 2009 recognized that challenge.
- [02:15]
Narrator/Interviewer
Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
- [02:32]
Christiane Amanpour
And he referenced the mistrust. My first guest helped write that speech and was also Obama's deputy national security adviser. Now Ben Rhodes turns inwards to what defines America with his new book out all we the Battle for American identity. It traces America's history through 15 speeches, from Benjamin Franklin's to Donald Trump's arguing that the fight over the nation's story is far from settled. And Ben Rhodes is joining me now from Washington. Welcome back to the program.
- [03:03]
Narrator/Interviewer
So good to see you, Christiane.
- [03:05]
Christiane Amanpour
So let's talk about the world that you know a lot about before getting to your book. This on again, off again. It's all proceeding nicely, but it's not happening and we'll bomb them if it doesn't and et cetera, et cetera. Can you make head or tails of what you think is emerging?
- [03:23]
Narrator/Interviewer
I can, Chrisjan. I mean, I think the bottom line here is that the pre war objectives, the idea that you might bring about a change in the Iranian regime or a collapse of that regime, that you could terminate the nuclear program, you'll recall that the terms under discussion or the proposals from Jared Kushner and Steve Wyckoff before the war involved not just ending the nuclear program, but ending the ballistic missile program or at least constraining it to a certain range, ending support for proxies. The Trump administration has come to terms or has to come to terms with the fact that they're not going to achieve their objectives and that the only way out of a war that has been calamitous for everybody involved, especially the Iranian people, but the global economy, the American military, the only way out is to essentially accept terms in which, you know, the blockade is lifted on Iranian ports, that the Strait of Hormuz has reopened, that Iran is going to get some revenue from sanctions relief or tolling that straight, and that you're going to negotiate a nuclear agreement that bears a lot of resemblance to the one that I worked on in the Obama administration in which Iran continues to have a program, but they accept limitations on enrichment and they ship their stockpile out of the country. And I think the reason that we're stuck is the sequencing of those events is important for how it appears. You know, does Iran get revenue upfront or later? Are nuclear commitments made up front or are they? And frankly, I think the Iranians feel like they have leverage, and so they're more than happy to wait this out. And Donald Trump just has to decide whether he can accept and spin, frankly, an outcome that is far from what he promised.
- [04:58]
Christiane Amanpour
And he does say a lot of very disparate things to a lot of disparate people, people who have his phone number or people who he calls in the press, et cetera. The latest is telling pbs, I believe that, no, no, no, there'll be no sanctions relief even if the Iranians ship out the enriched uranium. That's one thing. Then the other thing was talking about, I don't really care about the midterms. I've got all the time in the world. They're the ones, the Iranians, who are desperate to make a deal. Can you parse those two statements? Because one is substantive on whether they get sanctions relief or something for exporting their enriched Uranium, of course, under your deal, the jcpoa, they did export it, but it wasn't enriched to the level it is now.
- [05:40]
Narrator/Interviewer
Yes. Look, the way I look at this is, you know, he may be aware that the Iranians feel like they have leverage because they control that strait, and they've demonstrated that they can do that. And they don't care about the economic circumstances of their own people. Frankly, their own brutality allows them to kind of wait out the pressure from this blockade. Trump can say he doesn't care about the effect on the midterms, but the reality is it's not just the Republican Party in this country that is getting really impatient with this war. It's the Gulf Arab allies that also have Trump's ear, who need to move that fossil fuel and that fertilizer through the Strait of Hormuz. It's European and Asian allies. So he's hearing from a lot of people. The one thing I want to add to this, Christian, and I think you understand this, when we were negotiating with the Iranians, if we went out prematurely and talked up the concessions that we were getting, what we would hear from Iranian negotiators is what kind of problems we were creating for them with the irgc, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Now, I think the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in control of Iran. And so every time Trump says something or posts something online that is premature and that suggests an Iranian concession that hasn't been made, my guess is that those Iranian negotiators in Islamabad get a call from the IRGC saying, what are you doing? And then that, you know, unwinds that progress. And so Trump's incapacity to kind of stay quiet through this diplomacy, I think is part of the reason that we're not at a deal yet.
- [07:05]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah. And of course, you know, Trump doing that publicly and his right wing flank also attacking him. Right. The right wing senators or those who are even, you know, further hardline on this whole issue than him. But, you know, you just said something really important and interesting and we kind of know. But wow, talk about, you know, a reverse decision. You've just said the IRGC is in control of Iran. This was not the case before this war started. So when you think of the big picture, what do you think the post war Iran looks like? First of all, the whole idea of coming to the rescue of the people. And many did and still do hope that the bombing would have dislodged, I'm talking about from inside, dislodged this regime, but it hasn't. So what do you think big picture?
- [07:57]
Narrator/Interviewer
I think big picture is that you are going to have a more militarized and hardline Iranian government on the back end of this war. And you know better than anybody, Christiane, the complexity of that regime. It was a kind of negotiation between the IRGC and a political leadership and a clerical leadership overseen by a supreme leader. Well, when you decapitate the regime by assassinating the supreme leader and you create an existential threat to that regime, the IRGC are the ones who emerged both to crack down on the populace, but also they're the ones who controlled the strait. The IRGC are the ones that, that closed the Strait of Hormuz. So they're the ones who've generated the leverage both on the United States and in terms of the possibility of generating additional revenue by tolling that strait inside of Iran. It also stands to reason that when you create an existential crisis in Iran, and this is why I never thought military regime change made any sense. The people with the most guns are going to be the people most powerful in the country, and that's the irgc. So tragically, I think a regime change war that was launched on the basis of being helpful, although I'm not sure that was really the purpose, I think has led to a worse outcome for the Iranian people.
- [09:10]
Christiane Amanpour
And of course, a lot of this was powered by the view from Israel, not only the Mossad, who told the prime minister there and who told the president in the United States that if we do this and decapitate that, we will get regime change very quickly. And you've read the whole hullabaloo over this mad caper to put Ahmadinej, who you remember well, cuz he was president when you were in office there with President Obama, perhaps, as I've said, the worst of the worst of a bad bunch, hated in the rest of the world for what he said, what he did and the threats he made. Now in the big picture regarding the Middle east, we're hearing from experts. I spoke to Danny Citrinowicz, you may remember, he was an Iran expert in the intelligence community in Israel. And he said that this whole thing in one fell swoop has essentially ruined and collapsed US And Israeli deterrence against Iran because Iran has faced down these superpowers and has not capitulated and has not been defeated.
- [10:11]
Narrator/Interviewer
That's exactly right. And first of all, totally fanciful, this idea. First we heard it was Reza Pahlavi was going to move in and take over, then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you know, two dizzying New York Times reports. Look, the reality is that was fanciful thinking. I personally kind of felt like the goal was more regime collapse and then just see what happens. But here's where we are. We are in a circumstance where because they've demonstrated that they can shut down the Strait of Hormuz and paralyze the global economy, they now have a deterrent without having a nuclear weapon. That's a new dynamic in the region. Secondly, and really importantly, Christian, I think the Iranians know that America is very unlikely to attack them again. They saw how this war was received politically in the United States and around the world. Can you envision an American president, even Donald Trump, launching another war in Iran in one year or two years, in three years? That seems highly unlikely to me. They also see support for Israel diminishing in the United States, which makes it less likely that the United States would jump into another war with Israel, as they did in the 12 Day War. And so if you remove that threat of the likelihood of American military action and you add the capacity of Iran to shut down the strait, that's a lot of deterrence. And I think other countries like the Gulf Arab states are going to adjust to a new regional reality in which they may not like Iran, but they may feel like they have to make their own deals with Iran.
- [11:37]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, look, the Obama administration confronted the issue of the Middle east and you know, it's basically accepted that you sort of pulled back a little bit with the pivot to Asia and hoping that the Middle east would resolve itself with American help to get a two state solution and all of that. Clearly that didn't work. And you've got an even more radical Israeli government. And I mean that word because you've got it flanked and run by extremists who have no interest in a Palestinian state and in fact now are talking about the Gaza fication of just about everything in the vicinity, whether it's Lebanon, whether it's the west bank, whether it's still Gaza. And I wonder what you think is going to happen there, particularly vis a vis the United States. Let me just quote for you. You've probably read it, but Senator Chris Van Holland has written in the New York Times the status quo is unacceptable. He says it's past time that we use our leverage to end the occupation and achieve two stays with full political and legal rights for all. If you were back in the White House, do you think that that would be something that your administration would push for now?
- [12:46]
Narrator/Interviewer
I do. And look, I mean, we should talk for a second here. I worry a lot with the direction that the Iran war is going. You have the potential or you're going to have to have an Israeli election later this year. Netanyahu has not achieved his objectives in Iran. I worry that the escalation that we've already seen in Lebanon could coincide with escalation back into Gaza or escalation even further in the west bank as Netanyahu tries to do his kind of far right politics heading into that election cycle. And so the capacity for an Iran war to kind of be a frozen conflict and then to have Israel escalating in Lebanon, in the west bank, in Gaza, perhaps in southern Syria, again, I think that's a very real possibility. And so I think an American administration that is serious about that would not be providing military assistance or sales to an Israeli government that is disregarding not only American advice, but frankly, any recipe for peace and stability in the region. And then if you're serious about Palestinian rights, you have to do what Senator Van Hollen says. You have to back that up by saying there's going to be a path. We're willing to entertain recognition. And frankly, and he alluded to this in his article, if the two state solution is totally impossible, you have to explore the pursuit of other outcomes. You know, what can you do to protect equal rights for Palestinians inside of Israel? But unless and until the United States is willing to use leverage on the Israeli government, that's not going to change. The truth is, though, we haven't really used leverage, not under successive administrations. And that leverage is not providing military assistance or selling weapons systems to Israel.
- [14:30]
Christiane Amanpour
I mean, who could read the Future? But certainly the view from the United States is changing both in the Democratic and Republican Party, at least in the, you know, with the people around the country. I want to turn to your book, your new book about America itself. It's titled all we say. And you took 15 speeches and looked historically and chose them very carefully as to what they said about America back then. And now. It's basically, you say, the battle for American identity. Talk about you tell me, who do you start with and what is the premise throughout the arc of those 15 speeches?
- [15:10]
Narrator/Interviewer
Yeah, so I wanted to understand what's happening now by understanding the history of the debate we've had in this country. And I start with Benjamin Franklin, because the speech that he authored, that was a closing argument at the Constitutional Convention, did not defend the Constitution. It defended compromise. It said, if a bunch of people are going to come together in a room with different interests, different views, different prejudices, Then we are not going to have a union without compromise that made the country possible. But it was a starting point for this competition and this conflict we've had ever since, because the things we compromised over were fundamental. Everything from human slavery to who has the full rights of citizenship to the role of immigration and how people are naturalized into the United States. And so then I essentially trace the argument that we've been having ever since through politicians, through activists, and really, it comes down to two stories. One about a kind of inherited exceptionalism. We are, you know, it's a white Christian nation that are the inheritors of a Western view of supremacy. And yes, other people can be here, but they have to kind of be subordinate to that identity versus a more progressive story about expanding rights to more people. The abolitionist movement, the suffrage movement, the civil rights movement. I go through all of those. And frankly, I think right now, part of the reason that American politics is so intense and disorientating is because, first of all, one side of that competition is trying to declare it over. You know, Donald Trump has essentially said, nope, the story ends with me and with my ideology. And at the same time, I also feel, Christian, that we've lost the capacity to have speeches that aim to adjudicate these questions and persuade, you know, to go back and to look at how FDR talked about the purpose of America being for freedoms, or Martin Luther King painting a picture of a dream that people could believe in, in multiracial democracy, or even an Obama and a Reagan who had very different politics but had a kind of moral grounding for how they built their coalitions through words. We've kind of lost that ability to talk to and listen to one another.
- [17:16]
Christiane Amanpour
And yet there is a lot of talk shoved down our throats, both verbally and on social media by leaders as well as, you know, ordinary people. I want to use excerpts of two speeches that epitomize what you've just talked about. One, your former boss, President Obama, before the election, when he was forced to respond, it was famously called the race speech in 2008 when he had to respond to negative publicity after his pastor said some stuff. This is what Obama told the nation.
- [17:45]
Narrator/Interviewer
I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes that we may not look the same and may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction towards A better future for our children and our grandchildren.
- [18:18]
Christiane Amanpour
And, Ben, I'm actually going to quickly play the Trump excerpt that I have, and then you can discuss it. I don't know whether you had a hand in writing the race speech, but we'll talk about that. But Trump then, in his second inaugural, talks about, you know, the exceptionalism that you're talking about, particularly in the wake of having that failed assassination attempt against him and how he feels he was handpicked by God. Here we go.
- [18:44]
Narrator/Interviewer
The journey to reclaim our republic has not been an easy one, that I can tell you. Those who wish to stop our cause have tried to take my freedom and indeed to take my life. Just a few months ago, in a beautiful Pennsylvania field, an assassin's bullet ripped through my ear. But I felt then, and believe even more so now, that my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.
- [19:21]
Christiane Amanpour
Discuss Ben Rhodes, because they are both very powerful speakers. President Obama was famously, you know, motivating. And Trump, he speaks and people listen and follow him.
- [19:34]
Narrator/Interviewer
So those are the last two chapters of the book, those two speeches. And look, I'd say about Obama, I tell the story of being on the speechwriting team for that speech, and Obama got a draft and he stayed up the entire night. And the next morning we get a document that is completely rewritten. And it was the most personal reckoning with race that he'd done. But I also, in each chapter, I tell the story not just of the speech, but of the life story of the person who gave it and the movements that fed into that. And what Obama is speaking to in that race speech is, is the long, you know, 200 and at that point, 235 year effort to reconcile our differences, that we have to accept that this country has people of different races, of different beliefs, of, you know, even different prejudices. And he's very candid about both the prejudice and the inequality and the resentments that exist within the black and white communities in the United States. But what he's saying, he's making a case in that speech for, for common identity, that we are a multiracial democracy where we work out our differences through politics. And frankly, if we could build coalitions across races, we could solve the problems that have festered for so long and that were hurting the working class of both black, white and brown people in the United States. So that situates him in this continuum in my book that runs all the way back to the founding, but through the abolitionists and civil rights movements as well. As other movements. Trump, on the other hand, he does emerge out of certain strains in American history. You know, I look at the America first movement in the 1930s, a kind of paranoid isolationism. There's a populism that has always been there of resentment of certain elites and establishments in the United States. And there's certainly always been anti immigrant and xenophobic strains throughout American history. What is different about Trump from all of American history is the clip that you just played. Christian. Never before I have a Ronald Reagan speech. For instance, in the book, could you imagine Ronald Reagan saying that he was saved by God? To save America, Trump situates himself outside of the boundaries, the agreed upon lines of political competition. What Franklin was saying is we have to design a system that allows us to compete and to change the country going forward, but you have to play within the rule of law. You have to play within accepted boundaries. And so while I accept the legitimacy of many things that I disagree with, that Trump stands for and represents, I think what I cannot accept and what I think is so again, disorienting about this moment is the kind of extralegal nature of aspects of the Trump presidency. The law doesn't apply to me. I mean, look at the Iran war. Like there's no effort to situate that in any legal basis. Right. Look at many of the things he's doing. So I think Obama and Trump kind of, I ended the book with them because they, they capture perfectly these kind of two opposing stories. Although I think Trump is the one who's taken it a bit farther than anyone else before him.
- [22:37]
Christiane Amanpour
And it's a really fascinating look at who gets to choose to be an American, to call themselves Americans. So really interesting and thanks for your obvious perspective on what's going on in the world right now. Ben Rhodes, thank you.
- [22:50]
Narrator/Interviewer
Thanks, Hirsha.
- [22:50]
Christiane Amanpour
And later in the program, as the IDF intensifies its strikes against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, I asked conflict resolution specialist Oliver McTernan about his recent fact finding trip to Israel and the occupied West Bank.
- [23:11]
Narrator/Interviewer
Finding a source you can trust for weather forecasts should be easy, right? This is CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam, thrilled to introduce the new CNN weather app. Check your daily forecast to plan your day, the weekly forecast to see what's on the way and prepare for any major storm with our robust real time video coverage. The app is stunning. And if you're a weather nerd like me, you'll love our in depth stories and the photo of the day. Download the CNN weather app on iOS today.
- [23:47]
Christiane Amanpour
Now a possible U. S Iran peace deal as we were talking about, could upend years of campaigning by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu for war and regime change there, just as he campaigns to convince voters that he is still, quote, Israel's Mr. Security. Meantime, violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied west bank is escalating and aid into Gaza remains far below what's needed and what was promised. Hamas still refuses to disarm. Rebuilding remains on hold. So is there any hope for conflict resolution on the horizon? Oliver McTurnan is an expert on all of that and he's director of the NGO Forward Thinking. Joining me now, Oliver McTernnan, welcome back to the program.
- [24:31]
Oliver McTernan
Thank you.
- [24:32]
Christiane Amanpour
Christiane, you have just returned from the region and you've been all around. So tell me how you read what's happening right now, have, you know, ideas, attitudes changed, whether it's on the Israeli side, on the Palestinian side, in the other Arab countries you might have visited around there.
- [24:54]
Oliver McTernan
Well, Christiane, I think we have to emphasize the fact that the whole situation is very much interwoven. What happens with Iran, American Israel will very much impact on the situation in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. You can't separate them. And I think what we have to keep in mind is that we have now Donald Trump caught in a war of choice, which he obviously needs to get out of and needs to get out of looking, looking a winner. But you have the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, facing elections also in September and therefore to, I would say guarantee a chance of success in those elections. He needs to keep the war in Iran going. And if he fails to convince Trump of that, then he needs to escalate what's happening in Lebanon and Gaza. So as I say, we've got to see it as a sort of mosaic. Just it's intertwined. They're not isolated. It's two leaders, I would say, needing to come out of the situation looking winners. And I fear that is not going to be possible.
- [26:10]
Christiane Amanpour
Well, let me just play what Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday about the Lebanon intervention that he's doing and what might be happening, you know, from here on in, because they've essentially broken the ceasefire that they were holding and it just seems to be back to an all out war on Hezbollah positions. And there's been all sorts of, you know, calls to evacuate places like Tyre, a huge place in Lebanon and the like. So here's what Netanyahu said yesterday.
- [26:43]
Ben Rhodes
We are deepening our operation in Lebanon.
- [26:45]
Oliver McTernan
The IDF is operating with large forces
- [26:48]
Narrator/Interviewer
on the ground and is taking control of strategic areas.
- [26:51]
Ben Rhodes
We are fortifying the security zone in order to protect the communities of northern Israel.
- [26:58]
Christiane Amanpour
So that's what he says publicly. What do you hear from either the people who you've spoke to in Israel, including, I know you talk to some government types, some parliamentarians, as well as civil society. What are you hearing and even from Lebanon on this?
- [27:14]
Oliver McTernan
Well, first of all, I think we have to keep in mind that when the terrible events of October 7th happened, some in Israel saw it as an opportunity to introduce what they said, the third Commonwealth, clear Gaza, clear the west bank, and clear everyone south of the Litany River. Therefore, you could have a new state from the river to the sea, which was a Jewish state in reality as well as in principle. Now that I think that goal has not been overlooked or overshadowed. And it's not just the Ben GVIRS and Smokchitas that have been pushing it. There are people deep within Likud who would buy into it very much. Now, Netanyahu also is coming on the pressure from the families that return to northern Israel. Last year, I witnessed when the area was evacuated, the exchange of fire, the rockets coming over. One can understand. But I think the problem is the mentality, unless there is a change of mindset both in Donald Trump and in Benjamin Netanyahu and their followers, basically, that you don't solve these issues by force, you don't solve them by imposition. They have the idea and follow it, and they've said it openly. Peace comes to strength. Just look at history. We know that's not true. Peace has to come, and it will only come when people are regarded with equality, when the core causes of these conflicts are addressed. And that is essentially coming from the Jewish tradition of the prophets, is essentially when justice is present. You can't have peace without justice.
- [29:07]
Christiane Amanpour
You know, Oliver, I've had people on the program, Israelis and others who say out now kind of what you're saying, that the actual big conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which is unresolved, remains the biggest existential crisis for Israel, and that there will not be peace in the region until that is resolved. So you have done so much work on this. You've, you know, talked to the political wings of Hamas, you've talked to, you know, the pa, you talked to the Israelis, you talked to the Jordan, you talked to all the stakeholders. Where do you see at this time, given the fact that there's an election, given the fact that, you know, they believe in mowing the lawn and all the rest of it, and this is a Once in an opportunity time. Where do you see the, if there are any, any grass shoots for conflict resolution?
- [30:00]
Oliver McTernan
Well, again, I talked about the need for a change of mindset before making progress, recognizing the core issues, the need for equality. But that won't happen unless there is also, I fear, a change of mindset in the West. Too often we've been protective of Israel. We haven't respected Israel enough to call it out when it overlooks the essential norms that govern or should govern international relationships, relationships with people that grew out of the terrible horrors of the Second World War. We ignore them. And I always remember what Lapid said in 22November when he was foreign minister addressing the United Nations General Assembly. He said, rightly to speak in hate terms of Jews is anti Semitic. Then he goes on to say, to treat Israel different from any other country is anti Semitic. And I said, thank you, Lapid, but we need to put that into practice. We need to realize no one can delegitimize the state of Israel. It's a reality, but it risks delegitimizing itself if it thinks it can act with impunity, with total disregard, especially regard to Gaza now of the Geneva Conventions and the obligations of an occupying power, and equally its obligations to adhere to the norms that grew out of the Second World War in relationship to Lebanon and other surrounding countries. You can't behave with impunity and then secure your place, your rightful place within a region. So I think there needs to be two changes of mindset before we see any significant progress.
- [32:00]
Christiane Amanpour
You know, that's going to take some leverage, as you say, and it's hard to see where that leverage is going to come from, from those who actually do have the leverage. I was speaking to my previous guest, Ben Rhodes, President Obama's former deputy national security adviser, and we were talking about Senator Chris Van Hollen, who said there needs to be a change in how we deal with our close ally Israel to make sure that there is this justice, peace and security for all in that region, as you've just been outlining. But you just were talking about Yahya Lapid, the head of one of the parties who's gone into a partnership with Naftali Bennett to challenge, you know, contest the next elections against Benjamin Netanya. None of them are talking about the possibility of a Palestinian state. In fact, the opposite. They read the polls, they talk to people on the ground and there, I don't know whether it's just electioneering, but right now there seems to be no hope, even from the so called opposition To Netanyahu,
- [33:04]
Oliver McTernan
I think we're facing two problems. First of all, Israel is in a very traumatized state. The politicians you talk to, whether they recognize it or not, you see clearly they're traumatized by the events and the prolongation of these wars. But that leads, I think to a fear. And a fear is the worst, worst advisor you might say, in circumstances like this. But the second issue that we get from inside, talking with people we've known many years who are officials, advisors, chiefs of staff, they will say there is no strategy or strategic vision for the future of Israel. It's very much at the moment, it doesn't matter. Okay. Netanyahu is pursuing one area. If Benazir or Lapid take over, there is no significant change going to happen. And I think what is needed is Israel to have a period of internal reflection, to see itself and its role in the region. It can play an important part in the. But that won't come through ultimatums. I mean, I think the stupidity, if I may say, of President Trump's statement where he said it was mandatory for states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, even Pakistan to accept the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are a root part of the problem because they're not a recognition of the right of the Palestinians to have their own state, their own government and be recognized as a sovereign people, equals in the area that it's a big task. But I think we keep avoiding it. We're fearful of speaking truth. And I think the one thing I've learned, Israelis only respect you if you are truthful and blunt. They'll use all sorts of mechanisms of course to manipulate a situation. But I think it is wrong sighted. I think it is undermining the security of its country, not actually guaranteeing security. When we get this undermining of facts.
- [35:18]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, and look, you also talked to the Palestinian Authority. I mean just recently the Israeli Defense Minister, Kat, said Israel is working towards voluntary emigration of Gazans. That is continuing this idea that they should leave. But also on the other hand, in the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the PA, just has had the first Fatah Congress. Basically no fresh voices, still no presidential election. You know, he's just tightening his grip. He's 90 plus years old, consolidating power. Even his son, 64 year old Yasser Abbas, just elected in what many people are calling a nepo election to a position on the Fatah's top body. If they the legitimate Palestinians who've recognized the Israelis and who are, you know, Israel's right to exist and the peace process, etc. If they can't move forward, who's able to move this forward, this ball for the Palestinians?
- [36:18]
Oliver McTernan
Well, I think there are a number of people in the west bank and in Gaza who are very capable and competent and could provide the leadership that is essential at this time. Problem is, and here again, I think the EU and America are a great part to blame for this. We go for the easy option. We go for a system. The Oslo agreement was a terrible failure. It's been used to prolong the conflict rather than end it. And rather than recognizing that in 2006, saying the Palestinian people have spoken through what Jimmy Carter said, a fair and objective election, we chose no. We want to manipulate the situation. We want to put people who haven't got real constituency to guide the way forward. It won't work. It's not just the Israelis are failing and the surrounding Arab states, but I think also the eu, many European countries, even those who speak up and recognize the Palestinian state never act on the recognition. They never actually push to ensure that there is real reform, elections and a real national unity government in Palestine. We haven't promoted that. We play lip service to it, but we don't promote it.
- [37:41]
Christiane Amanpour
And as far as we can see, the so called Board of Peace hasn't done much either. Oliver McTernan, thank you very much. And we'll be right back after this short break.
- [37:54]
Oliver McTernan
Foreign
- [37:57]
Narrator/Interviewer
I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of
- [37:59]
Eitha El Khatadni
the Chasing Life podcast.
- [38:01]
Narrator/Interviewer
When the Wolverines asked me to deliver the 2026 commencement address to the medical school, I was honored and I jumped at the chance. We have a special episode because I'd like to share that speech with you all. To all the recent grads, whether it's high school or college or maybe, you know, someone studying hard to get in or just get through medical school, I want to share a few lessons that I learned along the way. Even more than 30 years later, I never take for granted that the education afforded me the chance to say I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta and this is Chasing
- [38:35]
Oliver McTernan
Life streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [38:45]
Christiane Amanpour
Immigration is a defining part of US History and its politics. Now House Republicans are pushing a 25% tax on the money that immigrants send overseas and Haiti would be hit especially hard. That country is grappling with crises from natural disasters, gang warfare and a full blown humanitarian emergency, and it relies on remittances from the US Especially following the gutting of Usaid. Itha El Khatadni has been covering this issue closely and she joins Hari Srinivasan to explain its devastating impact.
- [39:23]
Ben Rhodes
Christiane, thanks. Ether El Khatadni, thanks so much for joining us. You are the editor in chief of a site called Documented that focuses on all kinds of immigration issues in New York City. I guess. Tell me how the remittance issue, the restrictions, got on your radar and why they're so important.
- [39:39]
Eitha El Khatadni
Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. So at Documented, we cover, as you said, immigrants in New York City in several languages. So we write in English, but we also do in Spanish, Chinese and Haitian Creole. Our audience are immigrants, and we look at issues that are important to immigrants. What makes our journalism a little bit different is we actually source our stories and issues that our communities care about from the community, Right. So they send us questions on WeChat for the Chinese and WhatsApp for Spanish, and we're in several platforms for our Caribbean community. So we started getting questions, right, about what this actually might mean for them. So remittances is a huge inflow of income to so many countries around the World. World. There's $900 billion of remittances globally sent. And the United States is actually the biggest sender of remittances worldwide. Nearly $100 billion of those remittances come from the United States, and New York city is actually 10% of that. So these remittances are a huge lifeline for immigrant communities. It's actually a big source of why people come to the United States. Right. They come here in order to make money to send to their families back home. So it came on our radar when the administration announced a new 1% tax on remittances.
- [40:48]
Christiane Amanpour
Remittances.
- [40:48]
Ben Rhodes
Okay, so break that down for us. What actually changed and when?
- [40:52]
Eitha El Khatadni
So remittances are typically not taxed because, again, they support global economies. They're a big source of gdp, and they actually are higher than foreign direct investment in many kind of countries. So the US Typically does not tax remittances, but immigrants actually pay taxes, right, to send money through, you know, whether it's Western Union or any kind of similar services. One important note here is that nearly three quarters of any remittances sent are cash based, which kind of leads you to understand that they're typically immigrants who don't usually. Sometimes they're unbanked or most of the times they're unbanked. So out of the money that's been sent to take New York City as an example, that $10 billion that sent $500 billion was paid just in fees. Right. So an extra 1% tax, even though that seems little, it's actually nearly $100 million. Right. So if an immigrant, let's say, sending, you know, $100 to their family or $200, it's only $10 or $20. But for their countries back home, that's literally groceries for a week. So a tax that you put on this remittances is severely going to impact immigrant families.
- [42:00]
Ben Rhodes
So, you know, there's been a separate developing push to restrict transfer specifically to Haiti. There was A post on March 2 by the Department of Homeland Security. It said on X, American dollars should not be used to subsidize foreign economies, claiming that Haitians were, quote, taking $6.1 billion from America and pledging to keep fighting to end this. What was the reaction from the Haitian communities that read your publications and ask you questions?
- [42:32]
Eitha El Khatadni
Yeah, so like I said, we publish in Haitian Creole. We have kind of a TikTok channel. We get questions a lot. And. And the kind of sad thing about this is Haiti isn't even one of the top 10 countries that get remittances. So to give you some context, Mexico got more than $50 billion last year. Haiti only gets between, in the last few years, around 3 to 5 billion a year. But remittances have increased. So in 2025, there was actually a 20% increase in remittances sent from the United States to Haiti. But that's primarily because the situation, the humanitarian situation in Haiti, Haiti is so difficult. So to kind of backtrack a little bit, Haiti has been under a series in the last kind of 15 years, crisis after crisis. Right. It was hit in 2010 with a huge earthquake that killed 300,000 people, displaced one and a half million people. And that was followed by a cholera outbreak, which actually was traced to UN Peacekeepers. They had two huge hurricanes, or their president was assassinated a few years ago. So all of that kind of contributes to. Out of the 12 million people living in Haiti, nearly half of them are under severe risk of starvation. They need humanitarian assistance. And of those 6 million, 3.3 million are children. So the situation in Haiti is dire. So remittances are a lifeline. They actually constitute nearly a fifth of the entire country's GDP. Right. And the majority of that, that 70% of those actually come from the United States States. So Haitians in the United States support their families back home from starvation. And we've actually heard that from our Haitian members that it's not about, I'm sending money because, you know, it's extra. I'm sending money so my family doesn't starve uncoupled. With the fact that the US administration has cut off USAID, right, in January 2025, there's no more USAID going to Haiti. They've banned Haiti. It's on the list of countries actually to allowed immigrant visas to United States. This kind of adds to the kind of the layers of the troubles that Haiti is going through. This extra ban. To ban remittances completely, not just a 1% tax, but to ban remittances would literally lead to the starvation and death, I would say, of many, many Haitians.
- [44:48]
Ben Rhodes
What is wrong with the argument that says, look, this $6 billion is leaving the U.S. economy, it's going somewhere else. What are people missing about that?
- [45:00]
Eitha El Khatadni
So the United States typically has never taxed remittances because it allows part of kind of the United States policy to want countries to flourish, right? You want these GDPs of countries to grow, you want economies to grow. And if the administration wants to decrease immigration, right, One of the ways you do that is making sure the people in those countries have less reason to leap, right? So if they are getting remittances, you are then supporting them, allowing those people to stay in their countries because they are getting remittances from their family members back home. That's one, two. They are a significant source, even higher than foreign direct investment. So globally, across the world, that $900 billion, it literally lifts up economies, allows people to invest in their homes, in their families, and to build their countries. So what's also missing from this argument is that that this is immigrants hard earned money, right? There is often a rhetoric of immigrants somehow not working for this money, that they aren't actually deserving of it. But this money that is earned by Haitians, it's money they make here by working most often legally in services and in industries that we need. They send some of their money back home to support their families, but they also spend significantly here in the United States States. To give you an example of Springfield, Ohio, right? Because this comes up a lot in the media of a city that was less than 60,000 people had suffered for five decades without actual growth. And when the influx of just over 10,000 Haitians, it literally lifted up the entire economy, right? They filled jobs that have been, that had spent years, years in some cases not being filled. They bought homes, they invested their money, they lifted up the entire economy, right? And this goes back to obviously immigration being good for the US Economy. So again, these remittances support families, they support countries, and it actually benefits the United States by making sure the people here are contributing their money to both the US Economy and in paying taxes.
- [47:02]
Ben Rhodes
So what are you hearing in terms of the impact that the existing restrictions on the 1% tax and possibly what's coming down the line, what would that do to a Haitian family in Port au Prince if the money did not come from New York or somewhere else in the United States?
- [47:20]
Eitha El Khatadni
So the majority of remittances going to Haiti do actually come from the United States. Right. And primarily from those who are here legally. And really, what we hear is that remittances that are sent to Haiti stop families from starving. A 1% tax on its own is already devastating enough to immigrants, but a complete ban to a country that is already so decimated by political instability, humanitarian instability. Literally half the country needs humanitarian assistance. What we've seen over the last year and a half is what that kind of fear and that perception of what might happen, how that's actually having immigrants here change their lives. So even though it hasn't happened yet, you've seen people, you know, being afraid of a digital footprint. So even Haitians who might be in a position to have had a bank account in order to avoid that 1% tax, they're now thinking, well, if I, you know, if I put my information online, I'm afraid somehow ICE will come find me. Right. So you've seen people come further underground. You know, they don't want to go to the doctor, they don't want to send their kids to school. But also they're not frequenting businesses. Right. Like, we interview a lot of people in Flatbush, which is kind of little Caribbean here in New York City, people aren't going out to restaurants. So it's not just that they're not going to work or they're afraid. They're actually then businesses down, right? Restaurants are down. The US Economy, New York City economy, will actually be hurt again. There are between 330 to 350,000 Haitians legally in the United States. Two thirds of them are working. They contribute taxes, they contribute, you know, buying homes. They live here. So it's not just those people who are impacted, but it's millions and millions of people in Hai.
- [48:57]
Ben Rhodes
So is there a reason, reason why Haiti specifically seems to have a bullseye on its back from the administration? I mean, I'm thinking back to, you know, the false rumors about them eating cats and dogs in Springfield, and that became part of the sort of political conversation in America. And you're looking at also trying to figure out how to change the temporary protected status because members of the administration say, hey, this was supposed to first word is temporary. This earthquake was 15 years ago. We should be sending people back to Haiti.
- [49:30]
Eitha El Khatadni
Yeah, well, the situation I would actually say, if not worse, is definitely not better. Like I said, the two earthquakes, two hurricanes, assassination attempts, gangs taking over, that TPS is a protected status. That kind of, a lot of people fall under that. But this administration, in part of the rhetoric around immigrants and the othering that happens, Haiti is an easy target, right. It is an easy country to target for many different kind of demographics. All the way back, as you mentioned, from the kind of presidential debate that in order to kind of make again some of the rhetoric around, you know, immigrants eat strange foods, you know, they are violent, they take away your jobs. It is countries that fit within that rhetoric. The penalties that have been leveled at Haitians, even though the majority are here legally, work and pay taxes, banning them from immigrant visas, cutting off US Aid and now wanting to end temporary protected status really does hit a community that again contributes in all the ways. But yeah, it fits within specific immigrant groups. Our moral welcome than others. The Trump administration, for example, just announced that they want to increase white South Africans refugees. You know, the president recently just said he wants to allow 10,000 right. From South Africa to attend here and specifically white for, for racial persecution. So that kind of, you know, raises the question of why some groups and not other groups. And Haiti's contribution to the United States economy has been undeniable. Again, near nearly $6 billion contributed to the US economy. They are more likely to be paying taxes, one and a half billion dollars just in the United States.
- [51:19]
Ben Rhodes
I don't know if you've reached out to the State Department. How do they explain on the one hand wanting people to self deport and then on the other hand having a do not travel warning for Haiti, for anybody else that from America saying, hey, you know, there's still gangs that control a lot of Port au Prince. It's not a safe place to go.
- [51:35]
Eitha El Khatadni
It's very difficult to get comment. And when we do, again, they kind of point to statistics and point to things where kind of in context, yes, it does seem like on some level or some framework that there are numbers that have gone down. But again, to your point, the fact that Haiti is still do not visit, it is still there are reports the UN itself kind of talking about, you know, 5,000 killed. How many have been displaced in the last year and a half, the numbers clearly point to a humanitarian situation. Those numbers that I just quoted on kind of starvation and children that needing help, that the situation in Haiti is still as horrible as it is. And again, sometimes this is just, you know, dog whistling for a specific audience. But beyond that kind of March announcement, even though nothing has actually happened yet, Right? Like we could wake up tomorrow and this actually have gone to play. But again, the impact on Haitians that actually leads to self deport, right? We've talked to so many in our community over this last year and a half, immigrants from Haiti, other Caribbean countries and the wider immigrant population were just this kind of looming limbo, right. Tps that at any moment, the back and forth, the seesawing that's happened in a year and a half has caused so many of them to be like, we can't live like this anymore. We're just going to leave ourselves. There are other impacts of proposed policies that actually do happen, even if that policy doesn't actually happen.
- [52:57]
Ben Rhodes
Editor in chief of the site documented Eitar El Khatadni. Thanks so much for your time.
- [53:02]
Eitha El Khatadni
Thank you so much for having me.
- [53:05]
Christiane Amanpour
And finally, scientists have made a big discovery, albeit one no bigger than a golf ball. Deep sea researchers have identified a new tiny blue octopus near the Galapagos Island, a region, of course, that's famed for diverse wildlife and Charles Darwin's discovery of evolution. The creature was seen nearly 6,000ft below the water's surface, and its striking blue color is very rare. As cute as this little octopus might be, these creatures are also intelligent animals. And this one clearly prefers to keep a low profile and away from anyone's fishing net. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thanks for watching and goodbye from London.
- [53:58]
Eitha El Khatadni
Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper.
- [54:00]
Narrator/Interviewer
On my podcast, All There Is, we
- [54:02]
Eitha El Khatadni
explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You have been, and I mean this
- [54:07]
Christiane Amanpour
so sincerely, the soundtrack to my healing.
- [54:11]
Narrator/Interviewer
My guest on this episode is Chanel Jones.
- [54:13]
Eitha El Khatadni
In January, she began hosting along with Jenna Bush Hager Today with Jenna and Chanel, the fourth hour of the Today Show.
- [54:21]
Narrator/Interviewer
In May 2025, Chanel's husband, Uche Oje, died from glioblastoma.
- [54:26]
Eitha El Khatadni
When you hear other people share, it is healing and you don't feel as isolated. You feel less alone.
- [54:32]
Christiane Amanpour
And so I feel like you've created
- [54:34]
Eitha El Khatadni
this beautiful quilt of, like, nurturing our hearts. And so I am honored to be part of this quilt. Talking grief, building community. That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts.
- [54:53]
Oliver McTernan
I'm Daniel Dae Kim. I'm going to South Korea to figure out how this small nation conquered the world with its culture. Join me and meet the artists and creators behind the phenomenon.
- [55:03]
Eitha El Khatadni
K. Everything now streaming on the CNN app.