Russia-Ukraine War Escalates

Summary

Amanpour Podcast Summary

Episode Title: Russia-Ukraine War Escalates
Date: August 3, 2026
Host: Bianna Givens (in for Christiane Amanpour)
Notable Guests: Dara Masicow (Carnegie Endowment), Jeremy Dimon (CNN), Chris Krebs (former CISA director), William Cohen (financial journalist)

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the rapidly escalating Russia-Ukraine war, Ukrainian vulnerabilities in missile defense, internal Ukrainian leadership changes, the state of Israel-Gaza peace efforts, a series of Iranian-attributed cyberattacks on U.S. water systems, and the shape of the current AI and financial bubbles. The episode features on-the-ground insights from key experts, with an emphasis on real-time strategic, security, and technological developments.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Russia-Ukraine Escalation and Air Defense Crisis

Segment: 00:31–17:26

Key Issues

• Ukraine has intensified long-range drone strikes inside Russian territory, notably against civilian and logistical targets, while Russia escalates missile attacks against Kyiv and industrial infrastructure.
• Ukraine faces a dire shortage of Patriot missile interceptors, seriously limiting its ability to defend against large-scale ballistic and hypersonic Russian strikes.

Insights from Dara Masicow (Carnegie Endowment, [03:26])

• Russia has adapted its strategy, launching larger-scale missile salvos once it became clear Ukraine's interceptor supplies were dwindling.
  • “At first I thought they didn’t quite believe some of the statements that were coming out of Kyiv, that they were running low on interceptors... And now we’re seeing them execute 30, 20 ballistic missiles against Kyiv and its neighborhoods every night.” [03:26]
• Production of Russian ballistic missiles is estimated at 50–65 per month; Ukraine's rate of receiving interceptors does not match this.
• Ukraine's efficiency in air defense is high, but the 'math is just not favorable' with current support levels.
• Discussions exist around providing Ukraine the means to produce its own systems, but no direct substitute for Patriot is available soon. European contributions might help but are unlikely to arrive before winter ([05:39]).

Internal Ukrainian Issues

• Ukrainian leadership has faced upheaval, with recent firings of top military commanders leading to mass protests—the largest since 2022.
• General Dripathi, recently named top commander, shifts away from 'old school' Russian-style command to a trust- and tech-focused leadership, earning optimism ([11:51]).
  • "He has a great reputation among the soldiers and most crucially, I think he has a very good understanding and hands on understanding of the role of new technology in warfare like drones and AI...” [11:51]
• Leadership turmoil and scandals surfaced at a time when international support is critical, with former Defense Minister Fedorov's dismissal sparking public outcry ([15:16]).

Quotes

• “President Zelenskyy said previously that we are quite literally bringing the war back home to Russia. Is that how Vladimir Putin is feeling it?” — Bianna Givens [07:02]
• “It is making the war visible and palpable for Russian citizens. But... the Kremlin believes that it can still achieve its objectives and it is very comfortable with surging forces, even though they're experiencing remarkable casualty rates right now.” — Dara Masicow [08:25]

---

2. Israel-Gaza Ceasefire and U.S.-Iran Tensions

Segment: 18:34–24:45

Key Developments

• Israel conducted major strikes in Gaza, causing the highest daily casualties in weeks, amid complex ceasefire negotiations.
• Hamas signals willingness to lay down arms—conditional on Israeli withdrawal—while Israel refuses, citing concerns over Hamas retaining weapons under international supervision.
• President Trump's threats of massive strikes against Iran were reportedly dialed back after Gulf state intervention, but the diplomatic process remains fragile and cyclical.

Insights from Jeremy Dimon (Tel Aviv)

• Israel is being urged by international representatives to comply with the October ceasefire agreement, specifically the Sharm El Sheikh protocol.
  • “...Over the course of the last nearly 10 months since this agreement came into effect, we’ve seen near daily Israeli strikes in Gaza... At this moment, what we saw over the weekend was an increase actually in Israeli strikes.” [19:25]
• The U.S. and regional allies engage in start-stop diplomatic efforts with Iran, but progress remains illusory and cycles of de-escalation repeatedly stall.

Quotes

• “It’s very difficult to see how a path is actually found out of this repetitious cycle. For the time being, the Pakistanis say that they are once again reaching out to Iranian officials, trying to get them to come to Pakistan for a new round of negotiations.” — Jeremy Dimon [22:41]

---

3. Iranian Cyber Attacks on U.S. Water Systems

Segment: 24:45–38:03

Immediate Concerns

• Multiple U.S. states’ water systems were disrupted by cyberattacks attributed to Iran. President Trump publicly contradicted his own intelligence agencies by dismissing direct Iranian involvement.

Analysis from Chris Krebs ([former Director, CISA])

• “All the evidence suggests that this is Iran. It’s entirely consistent with prior attacks the Iranians have launched.” [26:03]
• U.S. intelligence is certain about Iranian attribution, but presidential vagueness may be aimed at preserving negotiation flexibility rather than compelling retaliation.
• Attacks succeeded in part due to poor cybersecurity at small water utilities—use of default passwords, internet-exposed systems, and underfunded local defenses ([29:07]).
• Federal funding and leadership for critical infrastructure cybersecurity have declined even as threats surge, creating a nationwide vulnerability.

Quotes

• “Every conflict for the rest of our lives will begin with some kind of cyber-enabled campaign.” — Chris Krebs [36:25]
• On federal support: “...the feds have to be involved, particularly if you’re poking, you know, kicking the hornet’s nest over there. You’ve got to expect blowback.” — Chris Krebs [32:18]

Notable Statistics & Takeaways

• CISA has seen 36% personnel cuts since January 2025 despite mounting threats.
• AI is escalating the scale and sophistication of cyberattacks, emphasizing the need for robust, secure-by-default designs.

---

4. The Artificial Intelligence and IPO Bubble

Segment: 39:15–54:14

The AI Bubble and Job Market

• AI is driving a bubble in both corporate valuations and capital expenditures, with parallels drawn to past tech infrastructure booms.
  • “What we're in is an AI valuation bubble and we're in a, a capital expenditure bubble. So there's way too much money being invested in AI...at way too high valuations.” — William Cohen [43:28]
• The overall impact of AI on jobs still isn’t clear. Entry-level white-collar jobs may be at risk, but AI may also free human workers to focus on higher-value tasks ([41:24]).
  • "AI makes mistakes. So you always have to check your work, Walter. Now you have to check AI's work." — William Cohen [41:24]

The SpaceX IPO as Bubble Example

• The SpaceX IPO was "pure bonkers," vastly overvalued at launch but quickly collapsed in value, highlighting risks for retail investors ([47:48]).
  • “Who got left holding the bag? ... the people like you and me who bought the SpaceX IPO, bought in all the hype, and now we’re holding it at $115 a share, half of what it was...” — William Cohen [49:23]

Wall Street and IPO Process

• The IPO system enriches bankers and institutional clients at the expense of retail investors; efforts to disrupt have failed due to what Cohen calls the "Wall Street cartel."
  • “They are the ultimate interstitial men...and they design the IPO process.” — William Cohen [49:39]

On President Trump’s Truth Social Pay-for-Access Plan

• Trump’s proposal to charge businesses for early access to his social posts is described by Cohen as likely illegal and “downright criminal,” raising deep concerns about market manipulation and transparency ([52:36]).

---

Memorable Quotes & Timestamps

• “This problem doesn’t have a solution that involves additional Patriot stocks. It’s time to consider other ways to reduce Russia’s launch capacity.” — Dara Masicow [03:26]
• “On the front line, the Kremlin believes that it can still achieve its objectives...even though they're experiencing remarkable casualty rates right now.” — Dara Masicow [08:25]
• “If he [President Trump] says this is Iran, then he has a much narrower set of options. In fact, he has political accountability and military accountability to go after the Iranians and make them pay for it.” — Chris Krebs [26:03]
• “Every conflict for the rest of our lives will begin with some kind of cyber-enabled campaign.” — Chris Krebs [36:25]
• “What we’re in is an AI valuation bubble and we’re in a capital expenditure bubble. ... The combination of those two things is not going to be great for investors in the long run.” — William Cohen [43:28]
• “The IPO process is designed to enrich Wall street bankers...Wall Street’s a cartel, and they like it just the way it is.” — William Cohen [49:39]

---

Notable Moments & Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment | Notable Moment | |-----------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:26 | Ukraine air defense crisis | Analysis of Russia’s shift to heavy missile salvos | | 08:25 | Russia’s military outlook | Russian casualty rates and Kremlin's battlefield confidence | | 15:16 | Ukraine's leadership shifts | Zelensky’s “own goal” and mass protests over defense appointments | | 19:25 | Israel-Gaza ceasefire talks | Ongoing Israeli operations amidst ceasefire implementation issues | | 26:03 | U.S. water cyber attacks | Evidence strongly points to Iranian involvement | | 36:25 | Lessons on cybersecurity | “Cyber is...the ball game now.” | | 41:24 | AI and entry-level jobs | Will AI eliminate or create jobs in white-collar sectors? | | 47:48 | SpaceX IPO | Retail investors suffer as IPO value collapses | | 49:39 | Wall Street IPO process | Why the system resists disruption | | 52:36 | Trump’s Truth Social plan | Charging for early access called “downright criminal” |

---

Tone and Language

The language is consistently factual, urgent, concerned, and analytical, capturing both the immediacy of on-the-ground conflict and the deeper, nuanced policy and structural debates. Guests provide expert, at times candid insights and criticism.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a comprehensive look at intensifying global flashpoints—military, political, cyber, and economic—with sharp analysis from expert guests. Major takeaways include Ukraine’s worsening air defense crisis, leadership tumult in Kyiv, the fragility of Mideast ceasefires, U.S. vulnerabilities to cyber threats from Iran, and the unstable terrain of the AI and IPO financial boom. The episode emphasizes the interconnectedness and rapid evolution of modern security and economic risks.

Transcript

[Bianna Givens]

Your team just added its 67th AI tool and also your 67th security blind spot. The good news, the Vanta agent works like a GRC engineer in the background, finding every app your team uses, scoring the risk and drafting fixes for you. Vanta is the platform used by over 16,000 fast moving companies like Ramp, Cursor and Harvey who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk. Get [e-mail].

Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. Ukraine keeps up its attacks inside Russia while it struggles to defend against missiles from Moscow. I'll speak to expert Dara Masico just back from Kiev. And Israel strikes Gaza as questions remain over Hamas's agreement to give up arms. Jeremy Dimon joins us with more from Tel Aviv. Then sweeping cyber attacks hit America's water systems. Why the evidence so far is pointing to Iran. Plus, are we in an AI bubble? Walter Isaacson asks financial journalist William Cohen. Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Anaga Rodrigo New York in for Christiane Amanpour. A surprise attack on a Black Sea beach. A warning. This video may be disturbing to some viewers. Russia says Ukraine deliberately targeted civilians firing a drone at a busy beach on Monday. Local authorities say 40 people were injured and seven people were killed, including three children. Ukraine has not yet commented on the deadly event. Kyiv has been stepping up its long range attacks inside Russia. Over the weekend, it once again launched drones at a warehouse belonging to Wildberries, a company known as the Russian Amazon. Meanwhile, Moscow continues to pound Kyiv with a massive missile attack over the weekend. President Zelenskyy said that his country managed to intercept only one of the dozens of missiles targeting it due to a shortage of Patriot interceptors. Dara Masicow is a senior fellow in Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She has just returned from a research trip to Ukraine and joins us now from Washington. Dara, welcome back to the program. So curious to your insights following your recent trip to Ukraine. So we'll get to that in just a moment. We'll also get to that image that we saw of what appears to be Ukrainian strikes at a Russian beach there where there are a number of casualties. I do want to begin though with what we saw over the weekend because there does appear to be consistency here with these ongoing long range strikes. The ballistic missiles that Russia keeps targeting towards Kyiv, other civilian populations, areas. 1 one of the 27 from President Zelensky says that they were intercepted. And in President Zelenskyy's words. He says that is because there are no interceptors for the Patriots. From your perspective, how does Moscow view this particular vulnerability? Not what's happening on the battlefield, but this as it relates to air defense for Ukraine?

[Dara Masicow]

Well, this is a vulnerability that we've been warning about for some time, as global Patriot interceptor stockpiles have. Moscow has unfortunately, over the last few months, started using more ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles against Kyiv and defense industrial targets. At first I thought they didn't quite believe some of the statements that were coming out of Kyiv, that they were running low on interceptors. And so they did smaller scale test salvos, essentially. And now we're seeing them execute 30, 20 ballistic missiles against Kyiv and its neighborhoods every night. This problem doesn't have a solution that involves additional Patriot stocks. And I think it's time to consider other ways to reduce Russia's launch capacity.

[Bianna Givens]

So then, do you expect to see Russia take advantage of this shortage from Ukraine and continue these types of launches? And how many ballistic missiles does Russia really have? Do we know? In its arsenal?

[Dara Masicow]

Yes. So estimates range of monthly production from 50 to 65 or so per month. And Kyiv, unfortunately is not receiving that type of interceptor in return. And they've become very efficient over time at hitting Russian missiles, potentially even more efficient than the United States military is in some cases. But the math is just not favorable when only relying on Patriot to intercept what Russia is increasingly going to turn to.

[Bianna Givens]

And Ukraine. President Zelensky has been adamant about one thing, and that is the need for more missile defense weaponry for years now. And his most recent visit at the White House only reinforced that. I'm curious, though, to get your thoughts on sort of backtracking that we saw from President Trump really surprising many, perhaps even his own defense companies here in the United States, when he said that the United States would allow Ukraine to have the rights to make their own Patriots. And he said, quote, we'll show them how to do it. Then on Friday when he was asked about that, he said, quote, we have not agreed to this, so take out the politics. But is there really any other substitute for the PAC3s at this point? Is there something that Europe could perhaps step in and help Ukraine with?

[Dara Masicow]

Well, I think what was being discussed for Ukraine was the Pact 2, which works, but just slightly less efficiently. There is no direct substitute that the United States has to provide to Ukraine that can substitute for Patriot. I think probably Ukraine's best bet, and this is something they're working towards, is their own indigenous air defense capacity. That's Still a ways off. Europe, I think could fill a role in the market that is needing additional competitors to come into it at this point. But none of these things, I think are going to be available in time for what could prove to be a very difficult winter. Ukraine is considering other options to try to degrade this capacity of Russias, such as going after the launchers themselves to limit the number of ballistic missiles in particular that are coming in. The cruise missiles and drones are mostly handled pretty efficiently.

[Bianna Givens]

And I believe it's Raytheon that is the US defense company that has been making, that produces these PAC2s and PAC3s. Is there any scenario where they could actually help provide the IP to Ukraine without the President's official sign off?

[Dara Masicow]

I'm not sure about that. I think that they would probably because that is such a sensitive technology and there have been issues otherwise, excuse me, in other places of the globe where we can't do that. I think that would probably be too tricky for them at this point.

[Bianna Givens]

Let's get to the images that we began this program with. And that is what appears to be a Ukrainian strike, though we haven't heard any official announcement or response from Ukraine. At a Black Sea beach resort there, a number are reported to have been. A number of Russians are reported to have been injured and killed. You and Michael Kofman, who is also a regular on this program, argued last month that Ukraine has now put Russia on the back foot because of these types of longer range strikes into Russian territory. Russian claimed territory over the weekend. Ukraine struck a major oil refinery, an airfield housing Russian strategic aviation, and as we noted, the warehouse of Russia's biggest online retailer, their version of Amazon. Ukraine's Defense Ministry says that this is something they're going to continue to do, striking several logistic hubs as well in Crimea that we have been talking about now for months. The sort of chokehold that Ukraine has amassed around that illegally annexed territory. President Zelenskyy said previously that we are quite literally bringing the war back home to Russia. Is that how Vladimir Putin is feeling it? And do you think he interprets this as perhaps an opportunity to really settle this war in earnest when he has that kind of pressure on him?

[Dara Masicow]

Well, I think there's two campaigns going on. One is the Ukrainian middle strike, which is covering all of occupied Ukraine up until the Russian border and Crimea. And that campaign has been quite successful. It has really reduced Russia's ability to move freely along the land corridor to Crimea. Logistics are impacted and will increasingly be impacted. We do see that Russia is Moving to develop countermeasures to that. So it's on their radar. It is causing problems in Crimea for electricity, water, fuel, food. So that is an issue, I think, that has his attention. The Ukrainian deep strike into Russia proper. This is the explosions that we're seeing on the refineries in Wildberries. It is a young campaign. It hasn't been going on for that long. A lot of those drones are intercepted, but some have very successful impacts. It is making the war visible and palpable for Russian citizens. But as far as I can tell, on the front line, the Kremlin believes that it can still achieve its objectives and it is very comfortable with surging forces, even though they're experiencing remarkable casualty rates right now. Very high Russian casualty rates. The operations, unfortunately, do continue in the Donbas. Yeah.

[Bianna Givens]

And your colleagues at Carnegie, Sasha Gabouov and others report that Russia is losing some 30,000 men a month, recruiting some 27,000, and are preparing for perhaps a quiet mobilization by electronic draft notice in the weeks and months to come. Can Putin actually pull that off this time around? There was a lot of reporting and speculation following the outrage that began following the initial mobilization when this war just started. Has anything changed internally?

[Dara Masicow]

Well, I think there's a couple different considerations for him. I don't think mobilization ever officially ended. They've just been doing it in a very quiet way, grabbing people and taking people in low numbers so that it's not notice. Their recruiting campaign is still mostly giving them the numbers that they need. So I'm seeing a few indicators that the Kremlin is asking the military to prepare some assessments. How much would you need? What would it take to get all of these Ukrainian territories? But that a decision has not yet been made. So it's on my radar. It's on Ukraine's radar. I think a very large mobilization at this point, like we saw a few years ago, is not a requirement. The Russian frontline doesn't have any gaping wounds in it that it can't compensate for at this time. It would be a Kremlin choice to try to take more decisive action. And so far, I think everyone is holding and preparing for a decision that could come later this year. But it hasn't been determined at this point, that I can tell.

[Bianna Givens]

And the manpower advantage that Russia still has in this war that's ultimately led to more and more pressure on President Zelenskyy, in part leading to the upheaval that we saw with regards to leadership in his defense over the last few weeks, where he fired his Top general fired his defense minister. That led to mass protests on the streets, probably the largest we've seen since the larger scale invasion of 2022. Talk to us about who Dripathy is right now as now the third top commander of this war, how he differs from his predecessors and what you learned about him from your most recent trip.

[Dara Masicow]

So we were there in Ukraine and moving along the front during a very dynamic time in this leadership shift. I think we arrived the day that former Minister Fedorov was relieved. Rumors were swirling on whether or not General Syrsky would remain in his job and potentially take retribution. But then towards the end of our time there, it was clear that he was going to be replaced and his replacements were being interviewed. My understanding is that there is a sense of relief that General Jripati has the job. I've had the fortune to meet him before and I find him to be very impressive both in terms of his previous battlefield successes. He has a great reputation among the soldiers and most crucially, I think he has a very good understanding and hands on understanding of the role of new technology in warfare like drones and AI, but how you still need very classical applications of power like infantry and artillery to hold ground. So I think he's an excellent choice for this moment, for Ukraine and I wish him luck.

[Bianna Givens]

Part of what doomed Syrsky was not only how he and many interpreted him as viewing too many of these soldiers as expendable. Again, there are a lot of accolades and achievements that he deserves as well for handling this war and he has many of his supporters. But those who were hoping to see this change right now point to that. They point to allegations of scandals, torture in training camps, dozens of non combatant deaths. Does any of that change now? Can you actually make those changes mid war?

[Dara Masicow]

I think so and I think it's important to talk about the cultural shift that's ongoing within the Ukrainian military as they try to and are largely succeeding. I think in my opinion, moving away from that Russian past and that Russian command style which is often known for its brutality and draconian control, Syrsky of course had many operational successes. He's had a long military career that he can be proud of, but there was a sense that he was more in that old school type of model and that Dripati actively works towards a different model of trust up and down the command chain, mission command and increased empathy. And it's really having a positive effect on trust. It's helping reduce AWOL under his command in particular. So I think there is a cultural shift going on in the Ukrainian military. And I think he's on the side of moving towards a distinctly Ukrainian model.

[Bianna Givens]

What surprised many was this sort of own goal that has been placed on the blame for President Zelensky for not foreseeing all of this buildup over time within leadership in the military, that when the wind seemed to be at Ukraine's back and the world, including President Trump, had been noticing it, that he was not on top of the scandals that were brewing and the tension within his own ranks. You were just there in Ukraine. He is someone who typically has a pulse on everything involved in the country. What did he miss out on here? And is that a sign of perhaps waning support for his own leadership at home?

[Dara Masicow]

I think the youth's own goal is exactly right with this one. This was a head scratcher for me, being there as an outsider. I think it was a head scratcher for many. Minister Fedorov was making headway in many different areas, improving procurement, developing relationships, even enhancing relationships, for example, with Elon Musk. So it was just a very curious timing that it came to the head right now. And then within a few weeks, President Zelenskyy was in Washington asking for support for Starlink extension over Russia. The timing was not advantageous. And I think to me, as an outsider present in country, it seemed to me that it caught the authorities by surprise that so many people came out to the streets initially in defense of Minister Fedorov. But then over time, over the course of that week, the protests almost turned into more of an anti Syrsky type of protest. I do think the authorities were caught off guard. They thought they understood a situation and then the people in Ukraine weighed in on that. And so it's a tricky moment for Zelensky. Fedorov wants to return to his old position. Politically, I don't think that Zelenskyy will be able to return him, but stranger things have happened. But right now, I think the acting Defense Minister and General Drapati will be able to do a good job until this political matter is sorted in Kyiv.

[Bianna Givens]

How important is the decision from Elon Musk on whether or not to honor that request about offering continued use of Starlink?

[Dara Masicow]

Well, what it would do, it would give a little bit more accuracy and specificity to Ukrainian drones and other missiles that are going into Russia. So instead of essentially pre programming things, they would have a little bit more control about where they're landing. In my view, I think the biggest help for Ukraine to survive this winter is reducing the number of missiles that Russia can launch specifically the ballistic missiles. So I think that probably wasi'm just speculating, but that was probably what was underneath the request.

[Bianna Givens]

Yeah. And the need for more interceptors as soon as possible. Dara Massico, really appreciate your analysis. Thank you.

[Dara Masicow]

Thank you.

[Bianna Givens]

Do stay with cnn. We'll be right back after the break. I'm Audie Cornish.

I'm Ari Shapiro. And it's engagement party and we get to talk about what we're obsessed with, what we're engaged with, what we need to process with a friend, the one

[Eddie Wong]

and only Eddie Wong. I was very scared of being hurt

[Bianna Givens]

once I met my wife.

I just felt like she liked me for me.

[Eddie Wong]

She had never seen fresh out the boat.

[Bianna Givens]

She had never been to Bauhaus.

[Eddie Wong]

She never watched Wong's World. There's a big thing too that we

[Bianna Givens]

both related to early on.

[Eddie Wong]

You know, people are always like, what would be your dream dinner party? Like, who would you invite? And I'm always just like that seems like a nightmare to sit with people

[Bianna Givens]

I admire where I have significantly more

[Eddie Wong]

information about them than they do about me. I'm like, I'm single wife femaleing them.

[Bianna Givens]

Oh, that's a really good point.

You were describing our work.

[Eddie Wong]

What are you talking about?

[Bianna Givens]

A good point.

That's what we do.

[Eddie Wong]

What are you talking about? Okay.

[Bianna Givens]

Follow engagement party wherever you get your podcasts.

And now Israel struck Gaza over the weekend. Airstrike Saturday caused the highest daily death toll in weeks, according to Palestinian health officials. Now this comes as President Trump continues to push a breakthrough in the implementation of last year's cease fire agreement. On Thursday, Trump said Hamas militants agree to disarm. But many questions remain. Let's go to Jeremy Dimon in Tel Aviv. So, Jeremy, Hamas says that it agrees to the roadmap that was laid out on Friday, but won't implement a single step until Israel withdraws. It is tying now maintaining its heavy weaponry until there is any guarantee or path forward to a Palestinian state. Israeli government says they will never accept that. Is there any version of a deal of this deal right now that both sides seem open to agreeing to?

[Jeremy Dimon]

Well, I think one of the important things to keep in mind here is that a lot of the steps that the board of peace that the United States and Hamas are asking Israel to take at this very moment in order to allow the rest of this plan to move forward are steps that Israel actually agreed to as part of the October ceasefire agreement. And that has been why in all of these statements, whether it's from Nikolai Mladinov the high representative for Gaza for the Board of Peace, from US Officials on, you know, back background calls with reporters. They are all talking about Israel coming into compliance with the Sharm El Sheikh protocol. That's where that October cease fire agreement was actually signed. President Trump visited with much fanfare when that cease fire agreement was reached. And one of the key things in that ceasefire agreement is the notion of ceasing fire. And over the course of the last nearly 10 months since this agreement came into effect, we've seen near daily Israeli strikes in Gaza. The Israeli military sometimes says that it is thwarting imminent threats towards its troops or towards Israeli civilians. Sometimes it says that it is going after terrorists who carried out the October 7th attack in Israel. But the bottom line is that at this moment, what we saw over the weekend was an increase actually in Israeli strikes. And that's why we saw today Nikolai Mladinov, the high representative for Gaza, meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister and urging him to stop those strikes, to come back into compliance with that Octo ceasefire agreement and to try and find a path forward for this deal to actually be implemented, one that would lead to these steps of Hamas handing over its weapons. But again, that's another layer of complication, because the reaction we've seen in Israel, really across the political spectrum, is a sense that this deal doesn't go far enough towards disarming Hamas, in part because you're talking about Hamas storing many of these weapons under a new Palestinian Transitional Authority with the supervision of this international security force and the Board of Peace. But many in Israel are saying it doesn't go far enough.

[Dara Masicow]

Yeah.

[Bianna Givens]

And who was actually stepping up to be part of this international security force? There are not many countries that have come out and guaranteed that they would be part of this. And many of them said they won't do it until Hamas is disarmed. They will not be the ones that will be coming in to disarm Hamas. Nevertheless, that was viewed as perhaps a road to some sort of agreement, and that's why there was optimism on Friday about this. Also over the weekend, there appeared to be some optimism and another whiplash from President Trump when he seemed to be just moments hours away from perhaps conducting what he himself described as the largest attack Since World War II against Iran, only then to backtrack and say that after being consulted by a number of Gulf countries, that it did appear that Iran was ready to come back to the negotiating table. Iran is speaking a different version right now, saying there are no negotiations happening. President Trump is calling them duplicitous Jeremy, what is going on?

[Jeremy Dimon]

What's going on is a repeat of what we've seen several times before already over the course of these start and stop negotiations, we have seen repeatedly times when President Trump has threatened massive strikes on Iran, only to ultimately call off those plans at the last minute because of some purported movements on the diplomatic track. And then what we later find out is that that movement on the diplomatic track simply wasn't actually in the offing. Instead, what seems to have happened is that the Saudis, in this case and other Gulf allies convinced President Trump to walk back, maybe offering him the promise of some movement on the diplomatic track. And then today, once again, President Trump is now complaining about the duplicity of the Iranians, saying that he had received assurances about progress here and that now the Iranians are backtracking. So there are different versions of reality here in which the president and everybody else seems to be operating. And the result of that is that we are stuck, it seems, in this cycle of thrust threats to carry out big strikes, of diplomatic off ramps that never actually materialize. And it's very difficult to see how a path is actually found out of this repetitious cycle. For the time being, the Pakistanis say that they are once again reaching out to Iranian officials, trying to get them to come to Pakistan for a new round of negotiations. We will see whether or not that is fruitful. But for the time being, these two sides still seem very much just as deadlocked as last week. Just because I'm here in Israel. It's also important to note that it seems like the Israelis were also preparing to join in on these latest strikes. And there have been some complaints in the Israeli media over the last couple of days about the fact that this is not the first time this has happened and that it's impacting Israeli military readiness to kind of ramp up preparations for a big attack like this, only to have those plans called off by the president of the United States at the last moment.

[Dara Masicow]

Yeah.

[Bianna Givens]

And all the while, the strait of our movement does not remain open for free traffic, as it had prior to February 28th. Jeremy Dimon in Tel Aviv. Forrest, thank you. Well, state and federal officials in the United States suspect that Iran may be behind multiple cyber attacks on water systems. At least seven states have been impacted so far. President Trump, for his part, cast doubt on Iranian involvement and blamed officials in one of the impacted states, Minnesota, for the cyber attacks there. So far, water supplies remain safe after automated operations were switched to manual mode. But concerns remain high for More on this. Let's bring in Chris Krebs, who served as director of the U.S. cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency until 2020. Chris, it's been a while. Welcome back to the program. Good to see you. So here we have the President saying that he does not think that Iran was behind these attacks. He specifically laid blame on, on officials in Minnesota, though, that we know this targeted seven states, not just Minnesota. He said, quote, I don't think there was an Iranian cyber attack. You ran the agency that oversees this type of operation. What happens when the President contradicts or even questions ongoing investigations conducted by his own intelligence agencies?

It creates some complications, for sure. And to be clear, all the evidence suggests that this is Iran. It's entirely consistent with prior attacks the Iranians have launched. In 2023, they had a water facility in Pennsylvania. In 2020, they conducted operations against Israeli water facilities and even going back to 2013, where they went after a dam in upstate New York. So it's entirely within their range of capabilities. It fits their fact pattern. My understanding is the intelligence community is fairly certain that this is Iran and that is what they're privately briefing to state, local, election officials. Again, not a surprise. And in fact, FBI, CISA and others released a report in April of this year that suggested that Iran was going to conduct and was in fact conducting operations like this. But to your larger point, it creates some confidence challenges in the intelligence community. But you know, at the same time, I do believe that there's an ulterior motive here perhaps for the President as well, and that he is creating or preserving rather his own decision space as he's negotiating, if that's the right term, with Iran. If he says this is Iran, then he has a much narrower set of options. In fact, he has has political accountability and military accountability to go after the Iranians and make him pay for it.

So that's quite an interesting charge. So if that is the case, who ultimately benefits from that vagueness?

Well, right now I think the Iranians have established that they have an effective operation in place. What are they doing? They're conducting a very low cost, low risk to them operation that is very noisy, highly visible in the United States. United States. And reminding the American people that this is not just a war over there. It's not just in the Strait of Hormuz, it's not just in the desert. In fact, the Iranians can reach out and touch American citizens in their homes when they try to turn the tap on. And there may be a boil water advisory or they may lose service briefly. So the Iranians have some leverage here. And I think it's up to the American leadership to both remind municipal utilities what best practices are. And that's taking these systems that the Iranians very easily hacked. I'll say take them offline, update passwords, but also go after the hackers for Iran and their Ministry of Information and Intelligence. Go after them, hold them accountable, and make sure that they can't keep doing it, because in the meantime, they're going to keep doing it.

[Dara Masicow]

It.

[Bianna Givens]

You said that they were able to do this quite easily. I know that there has been war gaming going on for this type of scenario for years. You oversaw something similar to this as well and have prepared for it. Why was it then so easy for Iran to. If it is Iran, to accomplish.

Yeah, okay, we'll keep using the caveat. But yes, it's pretty clear it's Iran nonetheless. So remember that in the United States, we're talking about 50,000 plus community water systems, and many of them serve communities of fewer than 3,000 people. So in some cases these are rural or not particularly developed communities. And they are in some cases, rate limited. They cannot charge high rates. But then again, why would they? They're providing a critical service to their citizens. And technology is something that requires a specific skill set to deploy, configure and manage on a regular basis in a secure way. And so there's some competing tensions here, getting that service to the citizens, but doing it in a way that's efficient and that's cost effective. And sometimes cybersecurity, sometimes adequately deploying these things doesn't really come in, in the cost effective bucket. So we do need to work on that, I think, with federal grant programs out to these communities. But the basics here were that these systems were deployed in a way that had these technologies, these components called programmable logic controllers. And it's just a little device that can turn a valve on and off. As an example, they are connected to the Internet because they're easy to access. So you want to be able to remote into these facilities, check on the status, maybe make some adjustments from a remote position. And that contributes to making things a little bit more efficient, lowering the cost. But sometimes they are deployed and configured in a way that uses the default password or keeps the default password in place. And as long as you can identify what the brand and model of that device is via the Internet and you have the manual with the default password, then bang, you're in. So that's all the Iranians did. Here, they scanned, they tested it, it worked. They locked them up. That's the attack. It's not complicated. It's not high cost, very low risk. They're sitting there in Iran, probably smiling.

Well, so to answer the question of why in 2026 is a small US town facing foreign intelligence services alone, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said that, quote, there's a lot of individual responsibility on local water systems to protect themselves. Here's more of what he said.

Cybersecurity is something that, it's not a new issue. It's been out there for a long time. And there's a lot of individual responsibility, responsibility on part of companies of local water systems and infrastructure of local municipalities and also state governments. You know, this is something that it's not just fought through our, you know, national military or our national intelligence network.

And in response to that, the mayor of a small town in Minnesota says that upgrades are just unaffordable for his community. Is that a sufficient answer?

It's certainly part of the solution. But to, to kind of give you the inverse of what Administrator Zelvin was saying. At the same time, you have a geopolitical conflict that has municipal level impacts. And so why are we as national leadership leaving it up to a small community in Minnesota, Michigan or wherever else, the full responsibility of defending against Iranian attackers? Now, I do think that there's more that we could do again if you at the state level, the local level, to improve the security of these facilities. But the feds have to be involved, particularly if you're poking, you know, kicking the hornet's nest over there. You've got to expect blowback. We've expected that for years, that when you, when you raise temperature, the temperature in the Gulf, the Iranians are going to try to hit us here. So we need to be doing more. And we're not. We're actually stepping back at the federal level on cybersecurity. The agency that I used to run, we've cut headcount personnel counts by somewhere along the lines of 36%. The budget has been slashed. The authorities enabling CISA to share information is on life support. So we've got to do more on the federal side to give the folks on the front lines that may be cash strapped give them some advantage. It's not going to be the silver bullet here. But again, this is a community fight. It's one of those all of nation efforts and we're just not doing enough right now.

Yeah, and it's important to note there's no permanent CISA director since January of 2025. At this point now, in response to those cuts, the administration is now touting some 600 new CISA hires and the House Republicans are boosting the budget. Part of what's driving this is, is AI and concerns about that technology. So a, do you view this as a win for CISA to finally be getting more employees, even though they're officially leaderless? And what role does AI have here in terms of what concerns we should be looking towards going forward?

Yeah, look, this is a recapitalization. This is not a boost to the top line. This is getting CISA back closer to where it was in January of 2025. So we should actually be well beyond those numbers right now. Exactly. For the reason you just mentioned, the fact that we do have cyber threats that are increasing as a result of AI. What AI is doing, open weight models that are coming out of China and elsewhere are going into the hands of cyber criminals that have been reliant upon human powered attacks for years. And many of them, it's English as a second at best language. And a lot of the tells in the phishing emails and the text messages you might get, you'll notice that there are grammatical errors, there's syntax errors, things like that. AI fixes that. So what we've got to do is put people in a position to understand the threat, get information into the hands of the American people and what they can do to defend themselves. But also, most importantly, work with our critical infrastructure providers, the vendors that are making the AI tools, and ensure that they're fully aware and they've got the right mechanisms, the right safety guardrails and guidelines in place so that this doesn't become a more chaotic environment that it already is and no doubt will be.

So while water systems are under attack and AI hacking looms and it is only going to continue, likely in the years to come. What lessons are our adversaries learning in 2026? Given that the President of the United States still seems so fixated on the election that you yourself said was the safest and most secure in US history in 2020, and the fact that you were fired over that. I know this is very personal for you, but just from a security standpoint, what lessons does that leave our adversaries to take away from this?

Every aspect of our society is susceptible to a cyber campaign of some kind, whether it's truly disruptive, like what we're seeing with the water facilities in Minnesota, or it's for more espionage purposes. Just last week, Microsoft and reliaquest another cybersecurity company, released a report about the Russian intelligence service, the SVR, that was responsible for the SolarWinds campaign of about six years ago. They released a report that the Russians are back at it and they've compromised hotel WI FI networks, conference center, WI fi networks, and they're putting info stealers on devices and they're stealing information. So look, this is cyber is, it's the ball game now. Every conflict for the rest of our lives will begin with some kind of cyber enabled campaign. Espionage campaigns will only proliferate. They will be further empowered, sped up the scale. The scope of these things are going to be only going forward again because of AI. So we have to be thinking much more deeply as a nation, strategically about the investments we're making in cyber defense, the investments we're making in software development make sure it's secure cyber by design and by default. But at the leadership levels, you can't cut your best assets in your agencies. It's happening at the FBI and the intelligence community as well. So we've got to get right back to putting those people into a position where cyber is a priority.

Chris Krebs, great to have you on. Thanks so much for that important analysis. And we'll be right back after the short break.

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. My guest is Dr. Dhruv Kullar. He has seen firsthand the effects GLP1s can have on addictive behaviors. Today we're gonna talk about how GLP1s are changing us, changing us as humans. And when the cravings go away, sort of trying to figure out, is there something else that we're losing as well?

[Jeremy Dimon]

People who had cravings for opioids said that those were, were being diminished. And so, you know, we thought about these as kind of digestive medications, maybe diabetes medications, but they're actually psychoactive medications, or so it seemed. What was so interesting about that is if you're playing with the reward system, that can have real implications for people's maladaptive behaviors. All sorts of addictions, but also a potential downside.

[Bianna Givens]

Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Well, artificial intelligence continues to dominate Wall street, from concerns of whether big tech spending sprees will pay off to how a new reliance on AI in the workplace will affect the job market. Questions remain around whether AI is going to take away job opportunities or create new ones. But financial journalist William Cohen says that it may still be too early to tell. He joins Walter Isaacson to discuss.

[William Cohen]

Thank You, Bianna and William Cohen, welcome back to the show.

[Eddie Wong]

Thank you, Walter. Nice to be here.

[William Cohen]

One of the big questions of our time is whether AI is going to kill jobs. The AI apocalypse is coming. It's been four years since the LLMs were first released and everybody said it was going to destroy it. And I kept thinking, well, technology always adds jobs faster than it kills jobs. The latest jobs numbers seem pretty good. Unemployment hasn't gone up much. 57,000 jobs added in June. What's really happening with AI and jobs?

[Eddie Wong]

There's a very big debate going on, frankly, about whether or not it will eliminate jobs or create new ones. And you're right again that each sort of technological innovation that has occurred in pretty much all of human history has resulted in some jobs being lost, but even more jobs being created. I was recently in Antwerp at the Printing Press Museum and that supposedly was going to ruin a lot of jobs, the printing press. And next thing you know, it created a lot of jobs. It may be a little too early in the AI game to know whether, because adoption is, you know, happening, but not across enterprises quite as quickly as you would assume. And therefore jobs haven't been eliminated as much as might happen or new ones created. I think people are still trying to figure out in enterprises how to use AI and incorporated it into their daily work lives as opposed to, oh, well, now we've done this so quickly, we don't need people anymore. I don't think we're quite there yet.

[William Cohen]

One of the things I've noticed from my students, I teach at Tulane and other young people is that one place it has affected is entry level white collar jobs. The ability of young people to get jobs. Is that reflected in the numbers?

[Eddie Wong]

Well, I don't know if it's reflected in the numbers yet. I think, like say, for instance, in Wall street and law firms, firms are still going great guns. They are still hiring plenty of people. And yet, you know, I'm well aware of AI firms that cater directly to Wall street firms. How can we do what the junior people in Wall street firms used to take them a week to do by hand or with computers implementing numbers into spreadsheets. How can we do that more quickly? And next thing you know, it turns out that can be done more quickly. It can take hours instead of days. And then the question is, what do you do? You need to check those numbers, because guess what? AI makes mistakes. So you always have to check your work, Walter. Now you have to check AI's work. If you're doing it that way, and then that potentially could leave more time for some of the nuances and subtleties of some of these professional services businesses, like learning how to give good advice, learning what, you know, legal niceties that clients need to hear, or the subtleties of giving good advice that takes a long time. Those are apprenticeship businesses. And if you, but to get to that, to get to that point, to become like the Felix Roatan of investment banking again, you have to master the basics of spreadsheets and financial analysis and valuation work that maybe AI will help you do more quickly and let you, and let you get to the next level, which is where all the value is added and the big fees are made.

[William Cohen]

Are we in an AI bubble?

[Eddie Wong]

Well, what we're in is an AI valuation bubble and we're in a, a capital expenditure bubble. So there's way too much money being invested in AI and AI related things, whether it's chips or data centers at way too high valuations. I mean, again, just look at SpaceX as one example. I mean, it was a $3 trillion company. Three weeks later it's a one and a half trillion dollar company. So it was, was overpriced by 100% for a little while there. And I'm sure privately OpenAI and anthropic and some of these others are also overvalued. So the combination of those two things is not going to be great for investors in the long run. Now, do we need the infrastructure of AI? Do we need the data centers? Perhaps, what are the effects? We opened this conversation by wondering about the effects on the job and employment markets. And the job market and what jobs will be created, what jobs will be lost. I think is, again, we're too early to know the effects of that. But you know, we probably do need the infrastructure. It reminds me, Walter, of the telecom build out for the Internet. In the late 90s and early 2000s, pretty much every company that was, went public and raised capital and spent that money on building out the infrastructure to build the Internet went bankrupt and investors lost a ton of money. But we need the infrastructure. It's in the ground. We still use it today and we're glad to have it. So, you know, there probably will be a shakeout in evaluations and money will probably be lost, just as it was in SpaceX, unfortunately. But the infrastructure, the technology, the advancements, the way people are using it all will end up being pretty valuable and we'll take it for granted as essential, just like I think we do today with the Internet that people that didn't even exist, you know, before, much before 1996. So, you know, technology has to advance. It has to be done in a safe way. Hopefully that doesn't hurt people and doesn't hurt to lose too many jobs creates more jobs than are lost. But there's no question that investors are going to lose their shirts to some extent because the valuations are just completely out of control and too much capital is going towards it. Because of those high valuations, there's been

[William Cohen]

a whole lot of tariffs slapped on. It's almost hard for me to keep up with it. But the past couple of weeks, major tariffs are. Why hasn't then there been more inflation or do you think that's coming?

[Eddie Wong]

Well, I think there is persistent inflation. It's, you know, with the oil prices rising, the price of gasoline at the pump. Tariffs are attacks on American consumers. Despite what President Trump may say differently, it literally is causing us to pay more for goods and services. And so I think inflation is persistently higher. And that's why I think three Fed governors at the meeting this past week said that they wanted to raise interest rates. And it was a 9 to 3 vote, which is very unusual, frankly. Usually there's some unanimity on this. And this is all happening at the time when, of course, President Trump chose Kevin Warsh to be the new Fed chairman because he wants rates lowered. Well, that doesn't seem to be happening. In fact, between the bond vigilantes and the dissenters on the Fed decision from this past week, I'd say rates are going higher. And Wall street is predicting that there'll be one short term interest rate hike before the end of the year.

[William Cohen]

Some people have called this 2026 is going to be a year of the IPO. And we already saw the SpaceX one come about. I think you used a technical term for the SpaceX IPO. You called it pure bonkers. What did you mean by that?

[Eddie Wong]

Well, you have to look at it from different perspectives, from the company's perspectives, from Elon Musk's perspective. It was a bonanza, right? It wasn't bonkers at all. It raised $86 billion, the most ever raised in equity for a single IPO. And it was great for the Wall street underwriters, the 23 of them who split $555 million in fees, literally half a billion dollars, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who each, Walter, got paid $111 million, which has to be one of the largest fees ever paid on Wall Street. And so from the company's perspective, the Underwriter's perspective. All great from their friends who are institutional investors who got their hands on that stock at $135 a share when it was priced and watched it go to $225 a share after four days. They probably got out. They probably made money. Who got left holding the bag? The same people that always get left holding the bag in these Wall Street IPOs that are overhyped retail investors who finally probably got in at close to 225 or at the top, or near 225 or at 225. And now the stock is at 115. So who's suffering those losses? Not the underwriters, not the company, not the institutional investors. But it's the people like you and me who bought the SpaceX IPO, bought in all the hype, and now we're holding it at $115 a share, half of what it was when they bought it. Ouch.

[William Cohen]

In a recent column, you talked about all this and you said that the IPO process is designed to enrich Wall street bankers. How come? And how can that continue to survive? Shouldn't that system be disrupted?

[Eddie Wong]

There have been people who've tried to disrupt this for years, Walter, but Wall Street's a cartel, and they like it just the way it is. They are the ultimate interstitial men. They are there between the companies and the investors, and they design the IPO process. They write the prospectuses, although AI might be helping, and they figure out where the demand is, and they price the IPOs. So they are defending their turf. And they love it. Why not? They're making.

[William Cohen]

Can we explain how they get all that money out of an ipo?

[Eddie Wong]

Well, they are the interstitial men. Okay, so they deal with the company, they write the prospectus with AI help, they shepherd the process through a road show, and then they're on the other side. They've got salesmen who are talking to institutional investors to find out how many shares they want at what price. And then it goes into this black box that no one can ever see. And next thing, lo and behold, SpaceX will be priced at $135 a share. Well, the reason is probably priced at $135 a share instead of, say, $200 a share is so those institutional investors who are big clients of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the other big underwriters can get that first day pop. And it did. The stock went from 135 to 150 before the first trade and then close to the 200 at the end of that first day. So who benefits from that? The people who they can give that stock to at $135 a share while it rise up during that first day pop. And that's by design. That's not an accident, that's not coincidence. That's basically how the IPOs are designed to perform. But that doesn't really do anything except for the underwriters and the institutional investors who are their big clients. So that's who benefits from IPOs. Yes, companies get to often raise the money they want, but actually they probably could have sold the stock at a higher price had they priced that stock not at $135 a share. And of course, retail investors who can't get it at $135 a share and have to wait till it starts trading and then buy it at 200 are now holding on to something worth 115.

[William Cohen]

President Trump's social media group, Truth Social and others has come out with that. They're going to charge certain businesses $100,000 per month in order to get early access to Trump's postings. And it seems to be part of a sort of transactional, almost pay for play type mentality. What do you make of that? Do you think that that hurts the American economy in the long run? This type of transactional and, and some would say almost, well, self dealing.

[Eddie Wong]

Yeah, I find this extremely disappointing. If there were real, if there was a real SEC and real SEC enforcement, this thing would have been killed in the cradle. Because this is extremely offensive. It's, it's, you know, close. I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me as downright criminal that the President of the United States would be selling early for $100,000 subscription to investors who want early access to his information. Which, by the way, a lot of people have been telling me not that he's been charging for it, but that people have been trading on his musings early. People around him who have access to what he's thinking and what he's going to, to write. Some of those trades have been showing up in, in the futures pits, I guess. I get emails all the time from people telling me about these trades that are going on. They can't believe that are making people a lot of money. And this is sort of making, you know, de facto what was already de jour, that, that, you know, people are trading on this information anyway somehow. And I guess now Trump's decided he wants to get paid for it. We can only hope Walter, that traders will be as disgusted by this as I am and won't do it, or that they will pay for it and they'll lose money making these trades because, of course, you can never be sure which way things will go, and therefore, it'll be a product that will die on the vine.

[William Cohen]

William Cohen, thank you so much for joining us again.

[Eddie Wong]

Thank you, Walter.

[Bianna Givens]

And finally, a message of love in the face of hate. Over the weekend, the German city of Hamburg held its annual Pride Parade. But with these celebrations came an extra level of security. It took place just one week after tragedy unfolded in Berlin, where an extremist attack left one woman dead and dozens injured during the city's Pride Party. In the face of it all, 300,000 people came together to unite as a community, all under one clear motto, queer and solidarity. Take a stand for a future without fear. All right. Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching and goodbye from New York.

Go inside.

[Eddie Wong]

The sports moments that brought us together and made history. From the underdogs to the rivalries and the miracles, it sends chills down your spine. It's what sport was all about. The new CNN original series, decades in Sports, now streaming on the CNN app.