Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:03]
A
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. Is the ceasefire over at the NATO summit in Ankara, President Donald Trump suggests it could be. As Iran and America once again exchanged fire, regional expert Salam Vakil joins me to discuss the latest developments. And how are allies reacting amid an already fraying alliance? I asked former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt and former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalda. Then, grief and desperation. Two weeks on from Venezuela's double earthquake, how a migrant deported from the United States miraculously survived the disaster. We'll bring you that report. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Manpour in London. After trading strikes overnight, are the US And Iran still in a truce? Not according to President Trump's latest threats to hit critical civilian infrastructure like electricity and desalination plants. And just like the last time he made these threats, they would still constitute war crimes. At the NATO summit, Trump was asked about the status of the MoU.
- [01:29]
B
As far as I'm concerned, it's just a waste of time dealing with them. They're liars. We make a deal, and if I make a deal with him, we have a deal and he goes out. He talks, we make a deal. Everyone's agreed, no nuclear weapon. We make a deal, they go outside, talk to the press. They say, we never even talked about it. There's something wrong with them. They're cuckoo. As far as I'm concerned, it's over.
- [01:54]
A
Well, cuckoo or not, Iran's top negotiator, Mohammad Barre Rallybaugh said today Iran isn't budging. The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don't fold. So is this all about negotiating in public or is the chance of a deal really dead? CNN's Kevin Lipdak is following all this from Ankara and he's joining me now. Kevin, you. And we all have just emerged from a very long and by even Trump standards, massively contradictory statements. So where are we first and foremost? Did he or did he not say the ceasefire is over and there's a real possibility of full scale war again?
- [02:37]
C
He said the ceasefire was over, but he said that the possibility of war starting again was low. And so, yes, these are contradictory statements. We don't have a good picture of where precisely the President sees this heading, except that he thinks this MOU that he signed exactly three weeks ago at the palace of Versailles is no longer in effect. He said that he didn't think the Iranians had been discussing a nuclear deal in good faith. And he seemed particularly irked that they were firing at commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. And he's been casting them as essentially bad faith negotiators. And it was interesting listening to him over the course of today. His rhetoric and his explanations for all of this did shift somewhat. You know, early this morning, he was furious at Iran. He said that they had promised the United States that they would not engage in this strikes on the vessels while that funeral was ongoing for this supreme Leader. Later in the day, he seems to dial back somewhat. He said that, no, he doesn't think the war will start again. He thinks that this tit for tat back and forth will not go on for very long and that he is, quote, not looking for long term. So we're what exactly does all of this mean? I think it just illustrates that the President finds himself in the very same conundrum that he was in before this MoU was signed. He faces a choice. Does he go back to full scale war and risk all of the political and economic repercussions that that would entail? Remember, when he signed this MoU, he said the war needed to end to prevent an economic catastrophe. None of the conditions have changed since then, so that would still be the result. Or does he allow these negotiations to continue? He sounds like that's not going to happen, although he is still allowing his negotiators, JD Vance, Jared Kushner and Steve Wykoff to try and get the Iranians back to the negotiating table. But by his own admission, it would be with a group of people that he doesn't trust. And it doesn't seem likely that the Iranians are going to want to come back to a negotiating table with someone who says that the war could potentially restart. So it's a very complicated, contradictory situation, I think, that the President finds himself in.
- [04:52]
A
Yeah. And the question is, is it negotiating in public? Look, he also, you know, called them scum today, whereas a few days ago he called them rational and smart and strong. But most importantly, and I think this is key, Kevin, he kept saying today that oil prices are down. I mean, they are not. The whole day was marked by spikes in oil prices precisely because of the resumption of this military, as they say, kinetic encounters in. Is that what is motivating him most, you think? The domestic pressure and the global pressure on the economy?
- [05:29]
C
I think it's one of the main contributing factors to all of this. And there, I think, lies the conundrum for the President. Every time that this war starts to flare up, you do see a spike in oil prices every day. We getting closer and closer to the midterm elections in the United States. The war is obviously enormously unpopular among the American public. And you could hear the sighs of relief among Republicans in Washington when this MOU went into effect. And so the president faces all of that same political pressure now that he says that the MOU is no longer effective. I think when you were listening closely to the president today, though, you did hear another contributing factor in all of this. He kept referencing over and over again how Iran wants to kill him, how he is the number one target on the Iranian assassination list. And I don't think you can separate that from the fact that you heard chants for President Trump's death in Tehran over the course of these funeral moments for the supreme leader. I think that's weighing heavily on the president. He is someone who we know takes a lot of this personally. And so when you listen to him, and I think, you know, having listened to President Trump a lot over the last decade, it's very clear that he is taking personal affront here. And that could be driving, I think, some of what he's saying here and some of his decisions when it comes to this conflict,
- [06:53]
A
and very quickly, because I have to move on. But he was quite conciliatory and almost nice to the NATO allies. He talked about unity. Did they really all tell him they loved him so much?
- [07:06]
C
I think it's easy to imagine that, particularly under the guidance of the Secretary General, Mark Ruta, who has spent his entire administration working to cultivate Trump in ways that have earned him the ire of a lot of European leaders. And so I think if they were taking their direction from him, they went into the summit with an eye towards explaining to Trump that, yes, he is, why Europe is spending more on its own defense and trying to bolster its own capabilities. Whether their dignity was a casualty in that arrangement, I think, is an open question. But it seems to have worked on President Trump. He went into this meeting sounding furious at the allies for not doing more to help him in Iran. And he emerged with a completely different tone, saying that he would sum up the entire meeting with the word unity.
- [07:58]
A
Well, it's a change. It's a welcome change. And Kevin Lipchak, thank you very much indeed. So let's get more analysis on the Iran situation from regional expert Sanaa Vakil, who's director of the Middle east and North Africa Program at Chatham House. She's joining me from London. Sanam, you've been watching pretty much all day. No doubt you're seeing what's happening. You've heard some of the analysis. What do you think is actually happening right now? What do these strikes signal to you?
- [08:27]
D
Well, good to be with you, Christian. I think that these strikes are just part of the process. Of course there is a possibility that this is a real breakdown and we could see further escalation over the next few days. But you know, it's important to remember that the MOU was signed in mid June, effectively, and we're three weeks on and this is the second round of kinetic back and forth between the US And Iran. So this could be part of the bumpy road. And today President Trump also did signal that negotiations would continue. So I think it's, you know, we shouldn't rule anything out, but I very much foresee negotiators trying to bring down the temperature and preserve the mou, or what's left of it. But what's problematic is that both sides have different interpretations of this MoU. And secondly, negotiations are not consistent enough to move this process forward.
- [09:34]
A
Let me ask you two factual issues regarding nuclear talks. Obviously President Trump, like every other leader in the democratic world, every other US President as well, has said Iran cannot, will not ever have a nuclear weapon. That's a given. What did the MOU say about talks about that process? Is it meant to be happening now or after the 60 day MOU timeline?
- [10:03]
D
The nuclear question or the nuclear basket is part of the technical talks that should be happening within the 60 day period and can be extended for another 30 days. There is meant to be a second round of technical talks in Switzerland. Those were announced but, you know, maybe not finalized. And so it's important to watch if those still go ahead. The US has built out a technical team and the Iranians certainly have one as well. And in the meantime, behind the scenes, the Qataris and other countries are trying to facilitate conversations and try to bring down the temperature quite quickly.
- [10:46]
A
And do you think then why do you think Iran is not starting the talks on nuclear?
- [10:55]
D
Well, part of it is timing and sequencing. Obviously the Iranians, after the last meeting in Switzerland, went back home perhaps to regroup, to build internal consensus on some of the issues. We don't have a lot of details on what was agreed or the progress. And that's what's problematic in my view. They need to be locked into a room for quite a period of time in order to move the dial. And it looks like we're going to get to the end of the 60 days without too much Progress. Personally, I think that there is room for progress on the nuclear side, really, because there's been such a history of discussions in advance of the February 28th war, but also last year on the nuclear talks. We know what the basic contours of that agreement is going to look like. What's problematic is that the MOU is vague on the process of reinvestment or reconstruction of Iran. It's vague on sanctions relief. And yes, the US has, has offered Iran a sanctions waiver, which today it revoked. But the Strait of Hormuz remains a big question mark. And these issues are all connected to each other. They're not separate technical discussions. So they need to be moving forward deliberately, continuously, and linked together rather than split apart.
- [12:23]
A
And do you think there is a way forward to resolve the Strait of Hormuz issue?
- [12:30]
D
I do think there is a way forward, but it can't be segregated. And what Iran, or Iran's response or effort to continue to destabilize the Strait of Hormuz or assert control over the Strait of Hormuz is tied to the fact that there is this Oman channel with ships trying to go out on that southern corridor of the Strait of Hormuz. And Iran understands this Memorandum of Understanding as one that gives Iran authority to manage the Strait of Hormuz. It very much sees the United States and other countries as trying to whittle down its leverage. And the same goes for the context of Lebanon, where Iran wanted the war to also end in Lebanon and push for an Israeli withdrawal. Iran thinks that the US And Israel and other actors are trying to segregate the various issues and thereby reduce Iran's leverage in this context. And so we're watching basically a power struggle, if you will, between all of these parties playing out militarily, playing out rhetorically, and of course, at the diplomatic table.
- [13:44]
A
I want to play something, because this all involves, obviously, Trump's partner in this war, Benjamin Netanyahu, who we know was not pro the ceasefire or the. The mou, and for all we know, has been lobbying hard to make it not continue. This is what he told CNN's Dana Bash, not just about, you know, the big picture, but specifically about the nuclear issue. The president believes that he can stop Iran's nuclear program, which is a nuclear program, to create atomic bombs. He believes that he can do this through negotiations and various pressures. Look, I have my doubts, but I think he should be given the chance.
- [14:27]
B
And he's trying to achieve that.
- [14:32]
A
It remains to be seen. But I have said, and by the way, I think President Trump has said
- [14:36]
B
too, that deal or no deal, I
- [14:39]
A
certainly will not let Iran have nuclear weapons. And that is also the president's position. So, you know, there's so much talk, Sanam, about the relationship now, you know, the political relationship and the strategic relationship between these two leaders. Where do you think it stands right now? Is Trump more on Netanyahu's side? Is Netanyahu still trying to basically destabilize any idea of peace? And, you know, you're a regional expert. Where does the issue of Lebanon stand? Because obviously part of the mou, the firstyou know, the first point was about ending all the wars, including Israel's war and Hezbollah, with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
- [15:23]
D
Well, I think the Trump Bibi Netanyahu relationship has certainly frayed through the course of this war and through the ceasefire and signing of the MoU. Prime Minister Netanyahu nevertheless continues to push and I think he is a perpetual spoiler. He ties, of course, his political survival for his potential reelection in Israeli elections this year to the purse strings of Washington and the security relationship. He is reported to be trying to get back to the White House and have another meeting with President Trump. So, you know, it's important to watch that space. I think that the US President definitely is a referee in between Israel and Iran and all of these complex regional dynamics. He does. However, President Trump here does recognize, of course, that perhaps he bought too much into the Israeli pitch, that this would be an easy, quick war. And of course, President Trump is paying the price. And that could explain quite a bit of distance between the two leaders right now, Netanyahu, that we should never count as fully out of the equation. He is a survivor and he will be working his way back in one way or another. And this is where, of course, Lebanon comes in. This is a critical election year for Israel and Israelis. And you know, Israel has been on a war footing for three years since October 7th. The population is certainly fatigued and the opposition, the so called opposition, is looking for ways to unseat Netanyahu and his coalition. We could see an escalation in the context of Lebanon going into the election. It's not going to be easy to demilitarize Hezbollah. That is the job of the Lebanese government. But nevertheless, these negotiations are continuing. But it's going to be very much a process and it's got to be an internal Lebanese process rather than an Israeli imposed process. And the longer that Israel destabilizes Lebanon, continues to destroy Lebanon, this quagmire is just going to go round and round in a Vicious circle impacting the populations on both sides, but primarily the Lebanese, but also the region. This is all very intimately connected to each other.
- [17:46]
A
And now back to Iran itself. As we all know, it's been a week long funeral procession culminating tomorrow with the burial of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader who Israel basically, you know, decided to wipe out along with the whole leadership on the very first day, assuming that that would lead to a toppling of the regime. Obviously in the form months that followed, we've seen that that hasn't happened. But there seem to be, you know, questions emerging about the unity of the current Iranian leadership, including opposition from the ultra hardliners to this mou, opposition to the, you know, the people who are meant to be running the country right now, including the irgc, from very hard liners saying that, you know, they would be traitors to make a deal with the United States. How are you reading the current state of affairs in the Iranian leadership and where might it lead?
- [18:46]
D
Well, I see the leadership as strategically unified in survival and trying to extract as many benefits as possible out of this period. And that's why of course, they continue to try and be provocative and unpredictable. I think this is the new Iran. It doesn't want to be a predictable, cautious Iran, which was the Iran of Ali Khamenei who was killed, as you rightly mentioned. But of course they have divisions amongst themselves. This system has always been factionalized. They've always debated, they've always been at odds at different polls. I think this is normal and perhaps a mirror of a lot of the same divisions. However, people might dislike this comparison with the US System that is equally opposed and equally critical of the MOU and this war. What does this mean going forward? It means that there is going to be a constant contestation internally in Iran. I don't personally see one group as having emerged as the dominant power. Certainly the IRGC is the most influential because they have been gaining influence in the country for quite some time. This war, this conflict with the United States has accelerated a lot of trends we have seen domestically in Iran, but also regionally. So the IRGC has an amplified role and there are certain key figures like Khaliba or Ahmad Vahedi that are consensus builders. But there are other players involved as well. I've written in the past about the Iranian deep state. The Iranian Nizam together is composed of other institutions and individuals that also matter. And any sort of agreement has to be sold internally. But it doesn't mean that principalists or deep Hardliners can't be silenced and pushed aside. And in fact, when the MoU was signed, it was signed because there was consensus across the system, because everyone at the Supreme National Security Council, practically everyone, was in agreement that this was the right way forward. So, you know, perpetual negotiation is part of politics and Iran has politics and that's how we have to see it. What we don't know is where Modsha Bar Khamenei rests in this system. He has been operating behind the scenes for many decades in his father's office. This ceremony, this week long commemoration of his father and extending into Iraq, could suggest just confidence, strengthen sort of religious ties perhaps. We have to watch the direction of travel, of debates, of rhetoric, and if the system chooses to moderate the religious ideology and turn to a more pragmatic negotiation with the United States or not. And I don't have a strong sense that they have made decisions or one group has emerged victoriously just yet.
- [21:52]
A
Salam Vakil, always good to get your analysis. Thank you so much. Indeed. And still to come, we take a closer look at how NATO allies are reacting. Can it withstand the challenges it faces? That's after the break. I'm Adi Cornish.
- [22:13]
B
I'm Ari Shapiro. And it's engagement party and we get
- [22:16]
A
to talk about what we're obsessed with,
- [22:18]
B
what we're engaged with, what we need
- [22:19]
A
to process with a friend. We're going to be talking about two of the most famous women in the world, Taylor Swift and Serena Williams. Also, if in your feed you have seen people tapping their face and their chest, we'll explain what that's all about. If you haven't, we will still explain what that's what that's all about. And of course, we're starting with Serena Williams because she's back. She is back. As we are recording this, she is playing in Wimbledon where she is a wild card. This is a huge deal because she's been retired for a couple of years. It was a big splash when she retired, but it's also coming on the heels of her announcement that she was on a GLP1. And just so we're clear, Peptides, all this stuff, none of it is banned from sports.
- [23:01]
B
Follow engagement party, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [23:12]
A
So is there a thaw in President Trump's unusually or usually frosty approach to NATO? As we discussed earlier at today's summit in Ankara, he appeared to be adopting a slightly more conciliatory tone towards the military, military alliance, saying the leaders had a great meeting with a lot of love and Unity in the room. But how long for? Let's assess with Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, NATO's newest member, and with Ivo Daalder, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO. Let me ask you first, Carl Bildt. You have seen what's going on. I don't know how much of President Trump's final press conference you listened to. It went on for quite a long time. But talk to me about the unity and the love he said, was expressed in that room. What do you think?
- [23:59]
E
I think love is a rather wild exaggeration. I mean, we should start from the basics and that is that the level of trust by the Europeans in President Trump is very low. So when you go into a summit of this sort, the aim is to survive the summit without any major bust up or any major crisis. From that point of view, it succeeded in anchor. There was no major bust up. It was, of course, Trump, which was highly unfortunate, repeating these claims on Greenland and he was threatening economic warfare in Spain and a couple of other things. But I understand that in the internal deliberations he was mainly speaking about Iran and of course, his misgivings with the lack of support from the Europeans. But he didn't question NATO in the way that he's done before. That if one should be positive, that was of course the positive thing
- [24:56]
A
and kind of a victory, really, because, yes, positive, but also a bit of a victory for the alliance and for the idea of, you know, still having a US Shield. Would you say that NATO, Carl, you know, Europe could feel confident still that America will be there to support them?
- [25:17]
E
I don't think it changed very much in that particular respect. I mean, we have very low standards these days. So the fact that meeting has happened without a major crisis is now seen as a success and even, as you say, a victory. But what is still pending is of course the big question about American commitment to Europe. They have announced that they will do a review of the American military presence, contributions to NATO contribution to the defence of Europe. But that's going to happen or that's going to be out in a couple of months time. That's, of course critical. What we are aiming for developing into is of course a NATO with significantly less U.S. the question is how much will the U.S. commitment to the security of Europe be reduced and in what shape and form will that process happen? Are we more confident in American support these days? President Trump is fairly unpredictable, to put it in those terms.
- [26:19]
A
All right, let me ask Ivo Daalda, former US Ambassador to NATO, where do you Think NATO sort of landed today. And same sort of question to you. Is Trump indicating, you know, a continued, you know, being a vigorous member of the alliance or what? Because as Carl said, he did threaten Greenland again. The prime minister of Denmark even said in the same room that Denmark would defend every inch of NATO territory, obviously including Greenland, sitting with the president of the United States. It must have been pretty awkward.
- [26:59]
B
Yeah, it was pretty awkward. I mean, I think two things came out of this meeting. Number one, I think an agreement not to have them anymore. It was noteworthy that the leaders said that they were looking forward to seeing each other at a future meeting, but weren't defining that future meeting as they had in the past, as being in 2027 in Albania. So they have now concluded that, frankly, two days of coming together with the hope and the victory that you are seeking being a boring meeting, as the Lithuanian foreign minister put it, is really not worth it. And so I don't think they're going to have a summit again until after President Trump leaves office. But secondly, and I think this is important, the president, although he, as you rightly said, he went after Greenland again, he went after Spain, he castigated allies in a whole variety of ways. He didn't call into question America's membership of NATO. And indeed, he signed onto a statement that the commitment to Article 5, the idea of an attack against one being an attack against all that, that commitment was, quote, ironclad. He did talk about the fact that the meeting itself had shown a tremendous degree of unity. And by all accounts, his behavior inside the meeting was genial and even supportive of what the Europeans were doing. So I think the day where you were worried that the United States was actually walking away from NATO, that day is over. So then the question fundamentally becomes, what's the relative, relative balance of contributions that the United States and its European and Canadian allies are going to make to the defense of Europe? And that balance is shifting very sharply away from a dominant United States that has contributed at times 70% of the forces and 90% or even more of certain capabilities, The Europeans are going to take on a greater role. The question is, this is going to happen cooperatively with the United States, or is it going to be because the United States said, we're going to withdraw our capabilities because we need them elsewhere, that is to be sorted.
- [29:11]
A
And I'm actually fascinated by the idea that there wouldn't maybe be another meeting until the end of the Trump term, because you've probably all read this report in the Wall Street Journal a very deeply reported article talking about, you know, the crisis talks amongst European leaders on how to face Trump. And one of the conclusions, obviously, was what Prime Minister Carney had said, which is, there is no going back. We're not going to be able to go back to the whatever good old days of NATO pre Trump. But there also seems to be two competing strategies. The Mark Rutter strategy, which is keeping Trump, keeping the United States entirely on board, and the macro argument that Europe must prepare for greater independence. Eva, what do you, which one do you think is going to win? Or are they just going to wait and hope that something changes when Trump is no longer president?
- [30:03]
B
So I think you need to do both. And I think there is a role for, for, for Margaret in trying to keep the United States onside by the flattery that he is better at than virtually anyone else. And in that sense, the fact that the summit one happened and two didn't fall apart is in large measure a testament to one, where it was held, which is in Turkey, but secondly to, to Margaret's leadership in trying to keep the United States engaged. And though we, you know, I don't like it, I don't think anybody likes it. I'm pretty sure Mark Ruth doesn't like it. It is effective to that extent. But at the same time, you also need the Macron or Carney or whomever strategy that says, listen, we cannot depend on the United States. The United States is no longer a reliable ally and as a result, we need to do more by ourselves and for ourselves in case, in fact, the United States decides that in a particular situation that no longer wants to participate in NATO operations. And so you need to do both because you might have NATO that is more European, but you don't want to have a NATO that doesn't have the United States engaged. After all, the US in my view, and I think the view a vast majority of Americans is European security is still indivisible from American security and vice versa.
- [31:32]
A
So, Carl, as the European do you feel bad that America in general does believe that, that they're still intertwined? But also pick up what Ivo said about how the actual location of the summit this week was in Turkey. Why do you agree that that was, you know, aided the sort of, I don't know, the atmospherics and the unity that came out of it? Obviously, Trump likes Erdogan. He says it over and again.
- [32:02]
E
Well, he said himself that a couple of weeks ago, he said that he was really not intending to go to the NATO summit because he thought it was useless. But he wanted to go because of President Erdogan. So from that point of view, the fact that it was in Ankara was significant. Trump did come. And although there were the hiccups, to put it mildly, on Greenland and Spain and a couple of others, as Levi said, the organization survived. And there's a short communique that is fairly constructive and fairly good. But we shouldn't disguise the fact that there is a disconnect in the biggest issue that we are facing, and that is the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which Europeans see as fundamental to our security. And Trump said something that Ukraine is far away. I mean, Iran is even more further away, by the way. But he indicated that they don't really have a dog in that particular fight. And that has, of course, been the problem that Europeans see that when we have an acute threat to the security of Europe, the Americans or Trump has been backing away in a way that leads to sort of worries of what happens, might happen if Putin accelerates escalates into something else. That's the big uncertainty that is there.
- [33:21]
A
Well, let me just build on that, because I want to ask you both about, obviously, the big threat, the hugest threat for NATO, which is. Which is Russia and the invasion of Ukraine and the war on Europe in, you know, threatening NATO. I was actually surprised, although nothing should surprise us about Donald Trump, that instead of the beatdown and the berating that he gave Zelenskyy back in the White House that famous time, he was actually much more congenial. He had that meeting on the sidelines with President Zelensky, and then he said that he was thinking about or he would allow the Ukrainians to build Patriot missiles, allow them the license, and allow other, I think, other European, Ukrainian, NATO members to do the same. And that he apparently also said that as soon as this was over, he was going to go and talk to Putin, call Putin and talk about how to try to get to a ceasefire. And he thought that the Zelensky, the Ukrainian, the way they're taking the war to Russia now, especially Crimea, could prod, you know, Putin into some other calculation. What do you make of that, Carl?
- [34:27]
E
Well, there's some question that there has been an improvement in the sort of personal chemistry between Zelensky and Trump since the famous meetings at the Oval Office at that time. I think the perception or the belief of JD Vance notably said all the time Ukraine was on the verge of losing, and they were more or less on the Russian side when it comes to how that that should be the conclusion of the war. Now, they do Understand that that is not what is happening on the battlefield. The front is fairly stable. The Russian attempts at offensive operations have largely failed. And even if the Ukrainians are receiving quite heavy damage from the Russian missiles, they have brought the war home to the Russians as well. So the dynamics of the conflict have changed. And that, I think, has influenced the White House and Trump. Whether that will translate into change in the diplomatic approach that has been, in my opinion, misdirected and confused ever since Anchorage, that remains to be seen. But clearly the Europeans would like the Americans or Trump particularly to be somewhat more constructive and less accommodating to Putin on these issues.
- [35:47]
A
Ivo, as the former US Ambassador to NATO, pick up on that because you have recently written in Politico about what appears to be still, even under this administration, the same kind of fear under the Biden administration of how Putin might escalate and react to more help and more squeeze on him, more help to the Ukrainians. You wrote recently about Trump's decision not to sell Tomahawk missiles to Germany, quote, not only is Washington no longer deploying deep precision strike systems to Europe, it's also denying its European allies the capacity to arm themselves with these systems out of fear of Russia's reaction. And today the Latvian president said NATO needs to take a stronger posture. If we say that there is going to be an attack, then we also need to say that we will fight. That's the Latvian president about this whole issue.
- [36:41]
B
Yeah, I thought, you know, what was interesting by President Trump is that he also supported the deep strikes by Ukrainians against Russia. And indeed those strikes, by the way, couldn't happen. But for the fact that the United States is providing significant intelligence by some sources that I talked to, more significant intelligence than was provided during the Biden administration in order to allow these, these, these strikes to happen. There is a difference, however, in allowing and working with the Ukrainians to allow Ukrainian drones and capabilities to hit Russians and US Systems. At least that's the line that the Biden administration drew. And I think it is the line in some ways that the Trump administration is drawing not only with regard to Ukraine, but importantly with regard to our allies, particularly when it comes to selling Tomahawk long range ground launch missiles to, to, to Germany. And I worry about the fact that the US Is trying to in some ways decouple its security from that of Europe. That is very much what I think this administration, particularly this Pentagon is bent on doing. And I think that is a big mistake. I think this is a time when the pressure on Russia should be increased. The, as Carl rightly said, the situation is changing and you know, Trump likes to back winners, he doesn't like to back losers. And right now it seems like Zelensky and Ukraine are the winners and Putin and Russia are the losers. Let's, let's, let's continue that pressure on Russia, therefore, in order to get to a end of this conflict that is consistent with Ukrainian security interests and therefore ours.
- [38:25]
A
And Carl, last word then. Do you think this, this, you know, pressure by Trump on Europe is actually working to do what Ivo says, to actually like that, amp up the pressure on Putin? I spoke to the former British Prime Minister Theresa May today and she was, remember, the first world leader to meet with Trump, as she told me, precisely to keep him attached to NATO. This is what she told me. I was the first world leader to visit President Trump in his first term. And one of the reasons for doing that was to ensure that he would support NATO. And he did and he came out supporting NATO. But what he said at NATO was what the UK actually agreed with, which was that the countries sitting around that
- [39:07]
F
NATO table had to up their defence spending.
- [39:14]
A
Carl, we can't ignore the fact that actually Britain still needs to up its defence spending. As we've seen, there's been a crisis in the British government because of this. But do you credit Trump with actually doing what many of you have believed should be done and that is more contribution from NATO members?
- [39:33]
E
Well, I would credit, if that is the word that should be used, Vladimir Putin, primarily for that. I mean, the fact that we are, for example, Sweden, my own country, we are tripling defence spending in some years. That's quite a lot of money. We are not doing that because some orders coming out of the White House. We are doing it because a country that is fairly close to us, Russia, is launching a huge military aggression in the middle of Europe. We would never have been able to get public opinion support for the vast increases of defence spending that we see in Sweden, in Norway, in Germany and ex numbers of other countries only because of American recommendations or pressure. It is the actual situation that we face in our reality of European security that is causing this. Then the Americans and Trump. The Americans have been saying for a long time that we are under spending. They've been right in that, no question about that, during X numbers of administrations. At the same time, the Americans have also been taking down defence spending and taking down their commitment to Europe during this particular period. So we've both been having that sort of misdirection of policies for a long time now. It's changing and that's good. But where the disappointment with Trump is, of course, the fact that he's backed away from supporting Ukraine.
- [40:55]
A
Well, yeah. Well, we'll see because he seems to be saying the right stuff now. We'll see where that goes. Former Prime Minister Carl Bildt, former ambassador to NATO, Ivo Dalda, thank you very much indeed. And we will be right back after this short break.
- [41:17]
C
Craig Ferguson is going coast to coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today.
- [41:21]
B
What could possibly go wrong?
- [41:22]
C
CRAIG ferguson, American on purpose. New episodes now streaming on the CNN app. Go to CNN.com watch to subscribe or log in with your TV provider.
- [41:39]
A
Now to the tragedy in Venezuela, where the death toll rises to 3,685 two weeks after the deadly double earthquake. The number of missing remains unknown, but it's expected to be in the thousands, with many blaming the government for a slow response. The acting president, Del C. Rodriguez, has pushed back, accusing media laboratories of creating a narrative of chaos. But as cemeteries expand and nearly 18,000 people are displaced, CNN's Carolina Piguero follows a migrant who was on the last deportation flight from the United States just hours before the disaster struck.
- [42:21]
G
I found out my dad was in Venezuela on Tuesday thanks to a woman who was helping me find him. On Wednesday, the earthquake happened and I hadn't talked to him yet. I knew nothing of him since then. I didn't know if he was okay or not. Two weeks after the devastating earthquakes in Venezuela, Albanese Parra still hasn't processed the uncertainty she experienced, not knowing about her father, who had been on the last deportation flight on June 24. Today he's alive by a miracle. My father survived by a miracle because he had a complaint filed against him by his sister from 15 years ago after an argument, and he was taken to a separate detention facility. Her father, Alberto Parra Villalobos, shares by a FaceTime call from Venezuela and explains how this miraculous detour saved his life, but not from the trauma he now lives with. After witnessing the aftershocks and the destruction,
- [43:18]
H
they told us, get ready, we're leaving. On the day of the earthquake. They took us to a courthouse which was across the hotel where the other deportees were staying at. The ground below was roaring loudly like the devil was coming out of it. And the sea waters were coming up through the toilets. I thought a tsunami was coming and I felt like I was being shaken in a hammock.
- [43:38]
G
Parra Villalobos, who had been living in the United States, under a political asylum status, was detained on Christmas Day in 2025 for driving without a valid license. And after more than six months being held in several ICE detention centers, he was deported under the Trump administration. He says the images he has seen will never leave his mind.
- [43:59]
H
It was a white cloud. You could see all the dust all the way from Caracas to La Guayra. I saw staircases collapsing, and suddenly more than a thousand vultures were flying all over the hotel. The guards were crying and some because they found out their families had died.
- [44:14]
G
He shares that he saw many who were on the same flight also lose their lives that day.
- [44:20]
H
I feel very bad about everything and what I've lived through. I will never forget the children and the pregnant woman who died. I stay outdoors all the time because I can't go into my house. I'm afraid. And I can't live like this.
- [44:36]
G
His daughter has been using her flower shop as a donation center to help families in Venezuela. She hopes that one day her and her son will be able to reunite with her father. I love him very much. I'm grateful to him. Even though we may argue, I love him. God gave him a second chance at life. And I know this is very painful for all those families who have lost loved ones. All we can do is trust in God. Carolina Pagueiro, cnn, Orlando.
- [45:05]
A
So many extraordinary stories. And just a note. President Trump continues to claim the US Runs Venezuela after seizing its leader earlier this year. But the administration's response to the disaster has been far smaller than previous relief efforts. For instance, after Haiti's 2010 earthquake, Washington sent $3 billion, 7,000 troops and halted deportations of Haitians to their shattered country. This time, it is $300 million, 900 military personnel, and no halt to deportations. Let's turn now to the World cup fever, a stunning comeback and a devastating defeat. That is the sound of fans celebrating in Buenos Aires as Argentina advances to the quarter finals, defeating Egypt on the final day of the round of 16. After trailing the Pharaohs for most of the match, the defending champion scored three goals, including the game winner in stoppage time, sparking even more Messi mania. But the match had its controversial moments, including the video assistant referee or Var overturning a goal from Egypt. Now all eyes are on the quarterfinals and a tournament already packed with surprises. CNN World Sports Amanda Davis joins us from Atlanta. So, Amanda, are the aftershocks of that Argentina, Egypt match still being felt?
- [46:34]
F
Yeah, very much, Christiane. I mean, 24 hours on, I just have to continue to think what A privilege it was to be there to witness. As I never take these moments for granted, I have to say, the difference in atmosphere here in Atlanta is marked. There were. I was amazed to see so many fans celebrating in Buenos Aires because it seemed they had all descended here for the game. But already the Albiceles contingent have shipped over across to Kansas City to prepare for. For their quarterfinal against Switzerland. But, I mean, one of them said to me, we have to suffer in order to win. And, boy, did they suffer. Against Egypt, you just had to see the emotion from Leo Messi and their coach, Lionel Scaloni at full time to see just how hard they had had to fight. I mean, two goals down on 79 minutes to an Egyptian side who had only produced their first ever World cup win. At this tournament, at this stage of the competition, for the first time, the doubts definitely started to creep in when they'd missed as many chances as they had. Leo Messi had missed that penalty, of course, and. And the fans were starting to think just maybe, maybe our reign as world champions is going to come to an end. But they have lost only nine games in 101 under coach Lionel Scaloni's tenure, and they dug deep. You can see why they're world champions. And Christian Ramirez set them on their way. And then, of course, Messi, with his moment to very much swing the momentum in their favor.
- [48:17]
A
Yeah, I mean, he never disappoints. But as you know, because you're reporting it, there's been some controversy. Right. So do you think it's legitimate, the controversy that was raised over the var. Issue. Issue, you know, raised by some of the Egyptian players? Let me get it absolutely straight. Some have accused officials of favoring Argentina after a goal was allowed for them, while one for Egypt was ruled out. And Zico, whose goal was disallowed, claimed quote. It's clear the tournament has been fixed. Fresh controversy now as it's emerged that France versus Morocco will be exclusively refereed by an Argentine team regime. And giving that France is, you know, viewed as Argentina's biggest rival. Is there any legitimacy to this?
- [49:00]
F
Yeah, I mean, there was the immediate anger in the aftermath of the match. Those quotes coming very much in the heat of the moment from the Egyptian coach and a number of the players, they've slept on it. And word coming out this morning that there has been an official appeal lodged by the Egyptian Football Federation to FIFA to remove this officiating team from the remainder of the tournament. Rightly that, as you mentioned, they're citing these two incidents but if you look at the cross section of debate, all of these incidents, there are people on both sides of the fence and var a technology brought in to make meant to remove this debate. All it has done across football seemingly has made the conversations louder, more emotive and more emphatic. And I think the feeling across the board at this tournament has been on the whole, it has been fair. Thomas Tuchel, the England boss though did call into question the standards around the England Mexico match saying it wasn't good enough. But what you've got here is a tournament and an official team that they're being brought together from all around the world. There are training camps for the referees, people trying to be all brought to the same standards, making decisions based on on the same things. But you know, it's the, it's human nature, isn't it, that some people make one call and somebody else makes another. FIFA haven't commented as yet. There's been no official response. But I've just got to say, Christian, you wonder if what happened with the USA and President Trump making the call about the US Red card has sparked the need and the feeling amongst other teams that they are able to ask these questions as well.
- [50:56]
A
Yeah, I mean that was such a shock around the world that that intervention by the President of the United States. Amanda, thank you very much. And if you were here, you'd be thrilled by the way the bridge are doing at Wimbledon. Arthur Ferry and of course everybody here is desperate for Sunday's match, The next England vs Norway in the quarters. So Saturday's match rather. Thank you so much indeed for joining us. The atmosphere has been amazing. And finally, Spaceballs. Ever since a number of those washed up on Australian beaches, confusion and speculation have been rife over what they actually are. Well, now some clarity. Australia's space agency says they are likely to be pressure vessels from a space launched vehicle. It says the objects were recovered and determined to be safe, but warns that if anyone comes across any more of these suspected space debris to move away immediately and alert the authorities. The agency's comments may be a buzz kill for online jokesters who put forward a slew of funny theories like that they were actually squid light bulbs, alien eggs or Christmas ornaments, whatever it is. That is it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye. From London, This is CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam, thrilled to introduce the new CNN weather app. Be prepared for anything with comprehensive coverage from real experts like me. Download the CNN weather app on iOS
- [52:19]
G
today
- [52:21]
A
from the descendants of history makers involved in the Louisiana Purchase to the Lewis and Clark expedition Discover the UN Told stories of American expansion in the CNN original series this Land, now streaming on the CNN app.